Sitting of 8 March 1911

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Coventry Corporation Bill,
Hebburn Urban District Council Bill,
As amended, considered; to be read the third time.
Clyde Navigation Bill,
Read a second time, and committed.
Rotherham, Maltby, and District Railless Traction Bill (by Order).
Second Reading deferred till Wednesday, 22nd March.
Halifax Corporation Bill (by Order),
Second Reading deferred till Tomorrow.
Kingston-upon-Thames Bridge Bill,
Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table.
Military Lands Provisional Order Confirmation Bill [Lords],
Reported, without Amendment; Report to lie upon the Table.
Bill to be read the third time Tomorrow.
Dover Corporation Bill,
Southampton Corporation Tramways Bill,
Felixstowe and Walton Water Bill,
Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table.
One other Member took and subscribed the Oath.

FOREIGN TRADE AND COMMERCE.
Ordered,—Accounts relating to the Trade and Commerce of certain Foreign Countries and British Possessions for each month of 1911.—[Mr. Sydney Buxton.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.

  Trade with South America (Warships on West Coast).
  Mr. NORTON-GRIFFITHSasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he would state what ships, if any, the Admiralty contemplate sending to the West Coast of South America; and if he would take the necessary steps to uphold the prestige of the British Navy and see that the ships sent out by the British Government were not inferior in size or power to those sent by the United States of America, Germany, or any other Power?
  The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. McKenna): The "Kent" and "Challenger" are now on their way to the West Coast of South America. I cannot admit that the prestige of the British Navy depends on the size or power of the ships that may be sent to any particular place on friendly visits.
  Mr. NORTON-GRIFFITHS: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he is aware that the United States of America contemplate sending another squadron to South America, and that Germany contemplates sending one of its largest cruisers of 19,250 tons register tonnage on a visit, and if he fully realises the importance to the trade and commerce of this country that our ships should be on a par with, if not better, than those of foreign countries?
  Mr. McKENNA: Yes. I have borne in mind all the points mentioned by the hon Gentleman.

  Accountant-General's Department (Royal Navy).
  Mr. O'GRADYasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether any decision had yet been arrived at as to the recommendation of the committee appointed to inquire into the Department of the Accountant-General of the Navy on 2nd January, 1909; whether he was aware that the recommendations of that committee were laid before his Board on 9th November, 1909, and that as a result of the delay in settling the question the entire staff of the Department is in a state of unrest; and whether, in view of the effect of such a state of affairs upon the efficiency of the Department concerned, he can make any statement which would tend to allay the anxiety amongst the staff as to the

  1187
  probable date on which any changes that may take place in the organisation of the Department will be instituted?
  Mr. DOUGLAS HALLasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the inquiry into the organisation of the Accountant-General's Department of the Admiralty, which was commenced in May, 1909, has yet been completed; and whether he is yet in a position to make any communication to the House on the subject?
  Mr. McKENNA: I regret that I am not yet in a position to make any statement on this subject, but I hope to be able to do so before long.
  Mr. O'GRADYasked on what date the recommendations of the committee appointed to inquire into the Department of the Accountant-General of the Navy in January, 1909, had been laid before their Lordships of the Treasury; whether any decision had yet been arrived at with regard to such recommendations; and, if not, whether he can furnish any information as to the reasons for the delay in coming to a decision, and the probable date on which the question will be decided?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: Correspondence on the subject of the Department of the Accountant-General of the Navy has been going on since May last, and is not yet concluded. I am unable to say when a final decision will be arrived at.

  Pembroke Dockyard.
  Mr. ORMSBY-GOREasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will state the total tonnage of war vessels constructed at, or ordered from, Pembroke Dockyard since 1st April, 1906, till the close of the present financial year; and the total tonnage for a similar period prior to 1st April, 1906?
  Mr. McKENNA: The vessels laid down at Pembroke Dockyard between the 1st April, 1906, and the 31st March, 1911, were of a total tonnage of 20,050. Those laid down between the 1st April, 1901, and the 31st March, 1906, amounted to 41,700 tons. I would observe that the figures in this form would convey an entirely false impression as the four ships of the earlier period, amounting to 41,700 tons, were not completed at Pembroke, whereas the ships of the later period have been or will be completed at that yard.
  Mr. ORMSBY-GOREasked how many men are now employed in Pembroke Dockyard; and how many were employed there this time last year?
  Mr. McKENNA: The number of men now employed at Pembroke Dockyard is 2,203. The number employed at this time last year was 2,057.

  Armoured Ships (Construction).
  Mr. ORMSBY-GOREasked how many armoured ships have been built in the last five, ten, and fifteen years, respectively?
  Mr. McKENNA: The armoured ships completed during the last five, ten, and fifteen years, respectively, are as follows:

  During the five years from the 1st April, 1906, to the 31st March, 1911–24.

  During the ten years from the 1st April, 1901, to the 31st March, 1911–75.

  During the fifteen years from the 1st April, 1896, to the 31st March, 1911–87.

  Rosyth Dockyard.
  Mr. JOHN WARDasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether any hospital accommodation has been provided by either his Department or the contractors for the use of the workmen employed upon the new dock works at Rosyth; and, if not, can he give any reason for the deductions from the men's wages at stated periods of sums of money for the provision of hospital accommodation?
  Mr. McKENNA: The Admiralty have not provided any hospital accommodation for the men employed by the contractors, who are alone responsible in this matter. I understand that the contractors have made arrangements for hospital accommodation. I am informed that it is a common arrangement for contractors on great works of this nature to make deductions of the kind referred to in my hon. Friend's question, to cover the charges for general medical attendance.
  Mr. J. WARD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that men who are working under his Department have had deductions made from their wages for hospital accommodation, and that only last week two of them, after paying for hospital accommodation, were admitted to the workhouse infirmary?
  Mr. McKENNA: My hon. Friend must not suppose that we employ these men. They are engaged to do work which ultimately will be handed over to the

  1189
  Admiralty. At present the workmen are under the control of contractors to the Government. I was not aware of the circumstances mentioned by the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. ASHLEY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether in the contract it was specifically laid down by the Admiralty that hospital accommodation should be provided?
  Mr. McKENNA: I have already answered that question. The Admiralty have no responsibility for the providing of hospital accommodation.
  Mr. ASHLEY: Do I understand that the Admiralty takes no responsibility for the lives and safety of the workmen?
  Mr. McKENNA: The Admiralty have no responsibility in respect of the conditions under which the contractors engage their men, except in so far as those conditions are stipulated in the contract. The only conditions we have entered in the contract are the conditions contained in the fair wages clause.
  Dr. ADDISON: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the fair wages conditions under which the men are employed do not imply that the contractors should provide suitable hospital accommodation?
  Mr. McKENNA: I understand that the contractors have provided hospital accommodation. Upon the point of responsibility, I have to state that the responsibility rests on the contractors and not on the Admiralty.
  Mr. J. WARD: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman will give facilities to the contractors, if such are required, in order that proper hospital accommodation should be provided near the works for the 2,000 men employed there?
  Mr. McKENNA: We have always worked on the most friendly terms with our contractors.
  Mr. J. WARD: Yes, but you do nothing.
  Mr. McKENNA: My hon. Friend is not entitled to say that. Any fair request made to us by the contractors we have complied with. The contractors have not asked for any particular site for this purpose.
  Mr. FELLasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if the increased work at Rosyth has entailed or will entail any further con-
  1190
  tracts for the supply of granite; if so, have these contracts been let; and, if not, will they be offered to the principal granite quarries in the United Kingdom?
  Mr. McKENNA: Under the terms of the Admiralty contracts for the works at Rosyth, the contractors have exclusive discretion in selecting their source of supply of granite.
  Mr. FELL: As we have already been informed that the contractors have gone to Norway for granite, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether further supplies will be considered as supplementary under the current contract or whether they will be open to tender?
  Mr. McKENNA: The contractors have exclusive discretion in selecting their supplies of granite.
  Mr. CROFT: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the Admiralty will put a clause in future contracts insisting on British granite being used?
  Mr. McKENNA: The contract is already made and the contractors have exclusive discretion in the matter.
  Mr. CROFT: I distinctly said in future contracts.

  Madrid Embassy (Chaplaincy).
  Mr. HICKS BEACHasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Rev. F. Bullock Webster was removed from the chaplaincy to His Majesty's Embassy at Madrid in October, 1909, without any reason being assigned for his dismissal; whether he was refused any opportunity of answering any charges that might have been made against him; and whether he will now allow an impartial inquiry into the case to be held, and give Mr. Webster an opportunity of replying to any accusations that have been made against him?
  The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. McKinnon Wood): Mr. Bullock Webster is fully aware of the reasons for his dismissal. He laid before me a detailed statement of his case, which has received the most careful consideration, and no useful purpose would be served by any further inquiry.

  French Army Operations.
  Mr. JOWETTasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if, during his term of office, any undertaking, promise,

  1191
  or understanding had been given to France that, in certain eventualities, British troops would be sent to assist the operations of the French army?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The answer is in the negative.

  Declaration of London.
  Sir GEORGE SCOTT ROBERTSONasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that, during the Russo-Japanese War, flour going to Korsakof, in the island of Saghalien, where no military operations were carried on, was seized and condemned by the Russians; that similarly rice bound for Newchwang was captured by Japanese on the ground that, although intended for the Chinese, it might meet the requirements of Europeans, and also salt for Nicolaeosk because fish are preserved at that place; and was there any declaration by Russia and Japan before the outbreak of hostilities that foodstuffs were conditional or absolute contraband?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The facts are substantially as stated. The notification issued by Russia and Japan, respectively, on the outbreak of hostilities, and the modifications made by the first-named Power as a result of representations made by His Majesty's Government, are fully set out in Parliamentary Paper No. 1, 1905.
  Sir GEORGE SCOTT ROBERTSONasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether he is aware that cotton consigned to private Japanese firms and captured by the Russians during July, 1904, in the "Calchas," bound for Shanghai, Yokohama, and Kobe, was condemned as contraband of war by the Russian prize courts on the ground that near Kobe at Osaka there was a large military arsenal; and whether, if great Britain were at war with a great naval power and the Declaration of London, which places cotton on the free list, remained unratified, raw cotton consigned to Lancashire in neutral bottoms might be declared contraband of war?
  Mr. McKINNON WOOD: The purport of the judgment of the Supreme Court at St. Petersburg in the case of the ss. "Calchas" was as indicated in the question. The contingency apprehended in the latter part of the question might certainly arise.

  Criminal Assaults on White Women (South Africa).
  Mr. LESLIE SCOTTasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he was aware that since the recent commutation by Lord Gladstone of the death sentence passed upon a native for an offence upon a white woman at Umtali, there had been an immediate recrudescence of such cases in South Africa; that by the 8th February there had already been at least seven such cases, in one of which a white governess was pulled off her bicycle and abused in broad daylight; and whether he intended to take any, and what, steps to deal with the effect that such a state of affairs may have in the South African Dominion?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Harcourt): I am informed by the Governor-General and High Commissioner that as regards the Union of South Africa he is advised by his Ministers that there has been no recrudescence of the cases in question, so far as is known to them, that the cases which have occurred since the commutation of the Umtali sentence are not appreciably in excess of the ordinary average of such cases in the various provinces of the Union, and that Ministers are confident that in not a single one of the reported cases can any connection be traced with the Umtali decision. The Minister of Justice, in speaking in the House of Assembly on the 7th of February, stated that newspaper reports of such assaults on the Rand were exaggerated. As regards Rhodesia, the newspapers have referred to two cases of alleged attempts since the Umtali decision, but neither has been reported officially to the High Commissioner. No cases have occurred in the native territories during Lord Gladstone's tenure of office.
  Mr. HAROLD SMITH: Is the right hon. Gentleman now in a position to tell the House whether Lord Gladstone before commuting the death sentence in the Umtali case first consulted any, and, if so, what Ministerial authority in Rhodesia?
  Mr. HARCOURT: I do not think that it would be right either now or at any time to give any private information which I might have or might not have as to the course Lord Gladstone took in the matter of a private consultation.
  Sir GILBERT PARKER: Is it the intention of the Government to lay before the

  1193
  House any papers in reference to the commutation of the sentence by Lord Gladstone?
  Mr. HARCOURT: I am considering that question; but there are no papers except those already published in the Press, and I do not know that it is worth while to reprint the despatch of Lord Gladstone which has been issued.

  Lord Chelmsford (Queensland Referendum).
  Mr. NEVILLEasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies, whether previously to the introduction of the Parliament Bills Referendum Act, 1908 (Queensland, 8 Edw. 7, No. 16), Mr. Kidston, the then Prime Minister of Queensland, requested His Majesty's Governor, Lord Chelmsford, to nominate, in virtue of the prerogative of the Crown, such a number of persons to be members of the Legislative Council, Upper Chamber, as would be sufficient to swamp that Chamber's opposition to the measures carried by the Legislative Assembly, Lower Chamber; if so, whether Lord Chelmsford refused to remove the deadlock in 1908 which arose between the Upper and Lower Chamber of that State by nominating such a number of persons as would swamp its opposition; and, if so, can he explain why such a refusal was given?
  Mr. LEWIS HARCOURT: In the exercise of his personal discretion, Lord Chelmsford declined to accept Mr. Kidston's recommendation that if absolutely necessary he would appoint additional members to the Legislative Council to secure the passing of the Bills in dispute. The Governor's action was due to the fact that he considered that a question so vitally affecting the relation of the two Houses should be submitted to the people at a General Election. As a result of the election Mr. Kidston (like some other Prime Ministers) secured a majority for his policy, and the Legislative Council (in my opinion wisely) accepted the measures in dispute.
  Mr. NEVILLE: Does His Majesty's Government approve or disapprove of Lord Chelmsford's refusal to remove the deadlock by swamping the Upper House?
  Mr. HARCOURT: I have not expressed—and do not intend to express—any opinion upon Lord Chelmsford's action.
  Mr. NEVILLE: Was the matter referred to the Home Secretary by Lord Chelmsford before he gave his decision?
  Mr. HARCOURT: That is a question of which I should like notice.

  Old Age Pensions.
  Mr. JOHN WILSONasked the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that the pension officers in Durham, in assessing the income of the applicants for pensions, include the furniture which the applicants may have in their houses, and assess its value at 5 per cent. interest; whether he can say upon what principle the assessment is made—namely, whether it is upon the original cost when the furniture was purchased new, or upon the amount it would realise in the market if sold as secondhand furniture; and whether, in view of the provisions of the Pensions Act, and of the fact that 5 per cent. interest on the amount is in excess of what would be realised if placed in a bank, he proposes to take any, and, if so, what, action in the matter?
  The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hobhouse): The recognised practice of pension officers in regard to furniture belonging to a claimant to an old age pension is to include in the estimate of means a sum representing 4 per cent. on the amount (if any) by which the value of the furniture exceeds £30. In this connection "value" means "market value." I am not aware that any other rule has been adopted by pension officers in Durham; but if the hon. Member will instance any specific cases in which this has occurred I will make inquiries.
  Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANSasked the Prime Minister whether his attention had been called to the estimate of the National Conference of Friendly Societies that it would cost only £23,150 per annum to remove the disqualification of about 90 per cent. of those at present disqualified from receiving old age pensions because they are receiving benefits; and whether he will introduce a Bill at an early date to amend the Old Age Pensions Act so as to remove the present restriction from all members of friendly societies?
  The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Asquith): My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will consider the point raised in the question.
  Sir ALFRED GELDERasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in the coming Budget, he could meet the case of married couples receiving jointly 7s.

  1195
  per week from the parish, where the husband was over seventy years of age, but could not receive the full pension of 5s. per week because his wife, who was under seventy, was in receipt of 3s. 6d. per week from the parish?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I must refer my hon. Friend to my answers to my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme on the 8th February, and to a number of subsequent questions dealing with this and similar points.

  Flixton Parish Council.
  Mr. CLYNESasked the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention had been drawn to the fact that the Flixton Parish Council failed to carry out, contrary to the Local Government Act, a resolution of a parish meeting held in March, 1909, with respect to filling a vacancy on the council; whether he has received a further resolution from a parish meeting on 13th October, 1910, calling for an inquiry into the administration of local affairs; and whether, in view of the petitions of electors, he can intervene to secure that effect shall be given to the provisions of the Local Government Act, 1894?
  The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Burns): I am advised that the resolution of the parish meeting referred to is not binding on the parish council. I received a petition asking for an inquiry into the management of the affairs of the parish, but I am not empowered to direct any such general inquiry to be held.

  Measles.
  Mr. JOWETTasked the President of the Local Government Board if, with a view to ascertaining the relative values, if any, of the various methods of dealing with outbreaks of measles, he will cause a Return to be made showing the number of deaths from measles in each of the Metropolitan boroughs during the four months, November and December, 1910, and January and February, 1911; the death rate from measles in each borough for the same period; the special methods adopted by each borough for dealing with measles, specifying boroughs in which calls are paid at the door and leaflets left, boroughs in which each known patient receives a personal visit with a view to ascertaining
  1196
  the conditions under which he is being nursed and the general sanitary conditions of the home, and boroughs in which disinfection is carried out; and the number of inquests held in each borough during the same period on children dying from measles and not having received medical attention?
  Mr. BURNS: Having regard to the statistics which are regularly issued by the Registrar-General, I doubt whether any further return of deaths from measles is required. I will send the hon. Member a table showing the deaths from measles in each Metropolitan borough as recorded weekly from November to February last. As regards the methods which are adopted for dealing with measles in London, much information will be found in the Report of the Medical Officer of Health of the county for the year 1904.

  Unemployment (London).
  Mr. LANSBURYasked how many men are now registered as unemployed by the Central (Unemployed) Body for London; how many have obtained work; and what prospect there is of those now registered and eligible for employment obtaining work through the Central Body?
  Mr. BURNS: I am informed that the number of men registered as unemployed up to the 4th instant was 23,705, and the number provided with work 3,413. As regards the last part of the question I am in communication with the chairman of the Central (Unemployed) Body.

  Birkenhead Waterworks.
  Mr. JOHN WARDasked the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been called to the presence of large numbers of workmen employed upon the Birkenhead Waterworks at Alwyn Valley, Denbighshire, with little or no house accommodation within ten miles; whether his Department has any powers under the local Act to insist upon the erection of suitable sanitary house accommodation; and, if not, how he proposes to deal with the housing question?
  Mr. BURNS: Under the Birkenhead Corporation Water Act, 1907, it is the duty of the Corporation to provide proper and sufficient temporary dwellings for their workmen, with all such sanitary arrangements as may reasonably be required, to the reasonable satisfaction of the Denbigh County Council. I have no information

  1197
  showing what arrangements have been made, but I am communicating with the county council in regard to the matter.

  School Children (Feeding).
  Mr. LANSBURYasked the President of the Local Government Board, if it is his intention to issue a circular to local education authorities advising them that, in the event of their feeding school children during the holidays connected with the forthcoming Coronation, he will, if the cost of such meals is surcharged, remit such surcharge by the exercise of the powers vested in him by Act of Parliament?
  Mr. BURNS: I am not contemplating the issue of any such circular.
  Mr. LANSBURY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Coronation will be celebrated by hundreds of thousands of school children starving during the holidays?

  Whiston Rural District (Sewage Disposal)
  Viscount WOLMERasked the President of the Local Government Board whether he had yet received a scheme of sewage disposal for the parish of Bold from the Whiston Rural District Council; and, if not, what steps had he taken to hasten the preparation of such a scheme?
  Mr. BURNS: I have not yet received the scheme of sewage disposal referred to, but have written to the rural district council, asking that the necessary particulars may be furnished without delay.

  Small Holdings.
  Mr. WINFREYasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture whether he is aware that during the three years and three months the Small Holdings and Allotments Act has been in operation the London County Council have not supplied any of the sixty approved applicants with land, either within or without the administrative county; and, if so, whether the Board of Agriculture now propose to exercise any of the powers vested in them to secure land?
  Mr. GULLAND (Lord of the Treasury): The number of applicants for Small Holdings approved by the London County Council is only twenty-three. There is practically no land available for Small Holdings in the county of London, and the Board are quite satisfied that the County Council are doing all they can to supply
  1198
  the unsatisfied demand. The council have provided over 1,200 persons with allotments.
  Mr. WINFREY: Can my hon. Friend point to any single case in which anything has been done by the London County Council to provide these men with allotments?
  Mr. GULLAND: Perhaps the hon. Member would give notice.
  Mr. WILLIAM BOYLEasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture if he will grant the Return standing in the name of the hon. Member for Mid-Norfolk (Agricultural Labourers and Allotments)?
  Mr. GULLAND: It is not possible to supply the information desired for reasons which I shall be happy to explain to the hon. Member if he will communicate with me. It will to some extent be given in the Annual Report, which is just going to press.

  Sheep Scab.
  Mr. CHARLES BATHURSTasked whether the President of the Board had received from the Gloucestershire Farmers' Union a memorandum pointing out the inconvenience suffered by Gloucestershire farmers in consequence of the regulations of the Board in reference to sheep scab, and asking that, with a view to the removal of the existing restrictions, all counties should be treated as a single area for the purposes of the Board's Sheep Scab Orders, and that in the event of an outbreak of the disease in any district such district should be isolated, with the place of origin as its centre, as in the case of an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease; and, if so, what action, if any, the Board propose to take in the matter?
  Mr. GULLAND: The Board have received a communication from the Gloucestershire Farmers' Union as to sheep scab, but its purport is not at all clear. We propose to communicate with the association on the subject.

  Sale of Estates (Departmental Committee).
  Mr. CHARLES BATHURSTasked who are the members of the Departmental Committee appointed to consider the effect upon farm tenants of the sale or devolution of agricultural estates; and whether the terms of reference are intended to cover such cases only as might prior to the decision in a recent county court action have been deemed to come

  1199
  within the provisions of Section 11 of the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1908, or whether they are intended to include the consideration of other questions relating to agricultural tenancies not raised in such action and outside the scope of the above section?
  Mr. GULLAND: I am not in a position as yet to give the names of the members. The terms of reference which I have already announced are of a general character and are not limited to questions within the scope of the enactment to which the hon. Member refers.
  Mr. C. BATHURST: Why, as the whole Committee has been appointed—and I happen to know it has been—have the names not been disclosed to this House?
  Mr. GULLAND: I am sorry I do not happen to know. Perhaps the hon. Member will kindly put a question down.

  Motor Spirit Duty (Rebate).
  Mr. GINNELLasked the Secretary to the Treasury, the collection of Motor Spirit Duty from manufacturers and dealers being the duty of the Revenue Department, by what authority does that Department, on failing to collect from those people, refuse the rebate due to a medical practitioner who is not bound to prove the payment of duty by those people; and whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer has sanctioned the refusal in such cases?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: In view of the fact that large quantities of motor spirit upon which duty has not been charged, and is not chargeable, are held in stock throughout the country, rebate is refused unless the Commissioners of Customs and Excise are satisfied that duty has, in fact, been paid to the Crown in respect of the quantities used by claimants of allowance of duty. This is in accordance with the intentions of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as embodied in the Finance (1909–10) Act, 1910. The identification of spirit on which duty has actually been paid can only be completed by Customs and Excise officials on their being supplied with full information regarding the source from which such spirit has been derived.
  Mr. GINNELL: Does not the Act provide that medical practitioners shall have rebate on the duty paid by them, and is not the fact that they have paid it the only question in the case?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: They must prove to the Customs and Excise that the duty has been paid before rebate can be allowed.
  Mr. GINNELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain how it is that in one case the medical practitioner is not required to show that the manufacturer and dealer have paid the duty, and now, although the medical practitioner himself has paid the duty, he does not get the rebate to which he is entitled by Statute?

  Road Board (Contributions to Local Authorities).
  Mr. HICKS BEACHasked whether it is the invariable rule of the Road Board only to allot grants to local highway authorities on condition that the local authority expends an additional sum beyond its ordinary annual expenditure in highway improvements, or whether a grant has been promised to any local highway authority without such condition being imposed?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: Grants made by the Road Board to Highway Authorities are as a rule limited to sums not exceeding 75 per cent. of the cost of the improvements towards which the contributions are made, and the Board endeavour to satisfy themselves that the grants will not be used for the purpose of indirectly reducing the expenditure on renewals properly chargeable to maintenance account.
  Mr. HICKS BEACH: Are any grants being made out of the Exchequer without any contributions being made by the local authorities?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I would point out to the hon. Member for Shropshire that questions on this subject had better be addressed to my hon. Friend the Member for Newmarket (Sir C. D. Rose).
  Mr. SPEAKER: I cannot allow questions to be put to the hon. Member for Newmarket, who is not a Minister or responsible to the House. I cannot allow questions to be put to him simply because he is a member of the Road Board. He might or might not be a Member of this House.
  Mr. HICKS BEACH: Can I get an explanation of this point?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: The hon. Member had better put a question down on the Paper.
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Has the Road Board any authority to impose additional rates?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: If the hon. Member will put a question on the Paper I will endeavour to answer it.
  Mr. HUGH LAWasked whether the only assistance proposed to be given this year by the Road Board in county Donegal is in respect of a road passing through the richest district in that county, and that no provision whatever is being made for the improvement of any roads in the Poor Law unions of Glenties or Dunfanaghy, which have an exceptionally large road mileage and population, and are among the poorest unions in the congested districts having valuations of £20,000 and £11,000 respectively; and whether, in view of the dissatisfaction which exists in county Donegal with the Road Board's present proposals, the Board are prepared to modify them so as to extend some assistance to the local authorities in respect of roads in the more necessitous portions of the county?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: The Road Board have circulated a map of the Irish roads towards the improvement of which they are at the present time prepared to contribute, and this map has been approved by the Executive Committee of the Irish County Councils General Council, subject to certain additions which the Road Board are willing to adopt. If the proposed scheme is adopted the county of Donegal will receive a grant towards the cost of works which the county may be prepared to carry out and maintain, the details of which will be settled with the county authorities.
  Mr. HUGH LAW: Will the work to be carried out have to be such as the County council approve, and if they indicate a preference for certain roads will the Road Board be willing to contribute?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: As I have already said the scheme will be adopted subject to certain conditions which the Road Board are willing to adopt. It must be a matter for conference between the various parties.

  Development Commissioners (Advisory Committee).
  Mr. NORMAN CRAIGasked (1) with regard to the nomination of the Prime Warden of the Fishmongers' Company on the advisory committee on fishing matters appointed by the Development Commissioners whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware that this gentleman is a member
  1202
  of the Council of the Marine Biological Association, the funds of which are mainly derived from grants made by the Government and by that company; and whether he will explain why four out of the six members of the Advisory Committee should be members of the Council of the Marine Biological Association; (2) why, if the Scottish Office considered it inconsistent with their statutory position to be represented on the advisory committee on fishery matters appointed by the Development Commissioners, the Development Commissioners have appointed Professor D'Arcy Thompson, a member of that committee, seeing that he is the technical adviser of the Fishery Board for Scotland, and the delegate representing the Secretary for Scotland on the International Council for fishery investigations in the North Sea; and why, having regard to the fact that the Board of Agriculture did not accept representation on the advisory committee for the same reason, the Development Commissioners made no corresponding appointment of a member identified with English fishery interests?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: The Master of Christ's College, Cambridge, is the only member of the Advisory Committee, who was appointed on account of his connection with the Marine Biological Association. The fact that Professor D'Arcy Thompson and Professor Bourne are also on the Council of the Marine Biological Association, and that Professor D'Arcy Thompson is a member of the Fishery Board for Scotland, and has special acquaintance with the International Investigations, was not regarded by the Commissioners as a disqualication, although the appointments were not made on that account. The Prime Warden of the Fishmongers' Company was nominated by the Fishmongers' Company as their representative without reference to his connection with the Marine Biological Association. The presence of Dr. Shipley and Professor Bourne on the Committee together with that of a nominee of the Fishmongers' Company secures the representation of English Fishery interests.
  Mr. NORMAN CRAIGasked whether the Development Commissioners, or their advisory committee, have under consideration any scheme for the development and improvement of fisheries in England and Wales, other than any schemes which may have been submitted to them in accordance with Section 4 (1) of their Act of 1909?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: The answer is in the negative.
  Mr. NORMAN CRAIGasked whether any applications for Grants from the Development Fund have been received by the Treasury for the improvement and development of fisheries; whether these applications have been received by the Commissioners through the Government Department concerned in accordance with Section 4 (1) of their Act; and, if so, what is the present position in regard to such applications?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. The second part therefore does not arise.
  Viscount CASTLEREAGHasked on what Vote the Development Fund will come up for discussion?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: The Development Fund comes up for discussion as a whole either on the Vote for that Fund, if there is any, or on the Treasury Vote, the Treasury being the Department whose Parliamentary representatives are responsible to this House for the administration of the Fund.

  Seamen's Discharge Books (Method of Endorsement).
  Mr. BRACEasked the President of the Board of Trade whether the method of endorsing seamen's discharge books is the exclusive right of the Board of Trade and its authorised officials within the meaning of the Merchant Shipping Act; if so, whether he is aware that the shipping federation are marking continuous certificates of discharges with a rubber stamp; and will he take the necessary steps to have the practice discontinued?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Tennant): Endorsements in seamen's discharge books are made by the masters of ships and by the Superintendents of Mercantile Marine Offices in accordance with the provisions of Sections 128 (1) and 129 (1) of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894. A continuous discharge certificate is the property of the seaman of whose service it constitutes a record. If the seaman belongs to a benefit fund, the rules of which require the stamping of his certificate, the Board have not raised any objection, provided that the stamp does not obliterate the statutory entries in the book and is made with the seaman's assent. The practice stated was sanctioned by the Board of Trade in 1900,
  1204
  and has been in force ever since. No information has been brought to the notice of the Board that would lead to the belief that it has resulted in any abuses which would justify me in withdrawing that sanction.

  Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway (Question of Liability).
  Mr. CHARLES BATHURSTasked whether the right hon. Gentleman's attention had been called to the loss in transit by Mr. Alfred Rowntree, of Field House Dairy, Kirkby Overblow, Pannal, Yorkshire, of seven quarts of cream, consigned in June last by the Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway Company to Southport, owing to the carelessness of the company's servants; whether he is aware that the company admitted that the loss was due to some luggage falling violently from a barrow and tipping the cream can over, and that, although the consignment note was in the revised form of owner's risk contract throwing upon the company the onus of proving that the loss was not due to their negligence, the company disclaimed all liability, and alleged that such disclaimer was endorsed by the Railway Companies' Joint Committee who decide upon the validity of such claims; and whether, in view of the monopoly enjoyed by railway companies, the admitted inability of milk producers to pay companies' risk rates for the carriage of milk, and the entire helplessness of consignors to protect themselves against loss under the circumstances above mentioned, he will take steps to prevent the supposed benefit to the consignor of the revised form of consignment note being nullified by the interpretation put upon it by the offending railway company or by the Railway Companies' Joint Committee?
  Mr. TENNANT: I have asked the railway company for their observations on this case, which has not previously been brought to my notice, and I will communicate with the hon. Member when I receive their reply.
  Mr. PETO: I desire to ask the hon. Gentleman whether he will consider the desirability of appointing an officer, or some Department, of the Board of Trade to whom small traders could be referred in such cases of arbitrary action on the part of a railway company.
  Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member has his question written out. Will he not put it on the Paper?

  Price of Wheat (London, Berlin and Paris).
  Mr. KELLAWAYasked what was the average price of wheat during 1910 in London, Berlin, and Paris?
  Mr. TENNANT: The "Gazette" average price of British wheat in London in 1910 was 32s. 7d. per imperial quarter, and the average price of wheat imported into London was 35s. 6d. In Berlin and Paris the average official prices of wheat—quoted irrespective of origin—were 45s. 4d. and 45s. 9d., respectively.

  Bristol Pilots.
  Mr. KINGasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has received a communication from the Bristol Pilots' Association protesting against the exclusion of pilots' representatives from the examining board which grants pilotage certificates for the port of Bristol; and whether he has taken, or proposes to take, any action to preserve the right, previously enjoyed at Bristol and most other ports of the United Kingdom, by which pilots are represented on the boards which grant pilotage certificates?
  Mr. TENNANT: The Board of Trade have received a communication on this subject from the Bristol Pilots' Association, and are inviting the observations of the Bristol Pilotage Authority upon it. I may remark, however, that the Board have no power to interfere with a pilotage authority as regards their mode of examining candidates for pilots' licences and pilotage certificates.
  Mr. JOYCE: May I ask whether the Board of Trade will put into force the Act which compels pilotage authorities, where pilots have representation on the Board, to have pilots present at the examination?
  Mr. TENNANT: I will consider whether the Board does or does not do as the hon. Member suggests.
  Mr. JOYCE: Provided they have the power.

  House of Commons (Refreshment Rooms).
  Mr. LANSBURYasked the right hon. Member for the Epping Division, as Chairman of the Kitchen Committee, if he will consider the possibility of arranging that one of the refreshment rooms, at which refreshments may be obtained for women during the hours of six till ten, may be set apart for the sale of light
  1206
  refreshments and not dinners, in order that those Members and their friends who dine at midday may not be obliged to incur the extra expense of dinner or go without refreshment of any kind?
  Colonel LOCKWOOD: The refreshment rooms already available are frequently overcrowded of a night. Tea and light refreshments are served in the Terrace rooms until 6.30. These facilities have up till the present time met all the demands of Members and visitors here; but I will gladly see if it is possible to meet the wishes of the hon. Member and communicate with him privately later on upon the subject.

  Small Landholders (Scotland) Bill.
  Mr. WEIRasked the Prime Minister, in view of the fact that the Small Landholders (Scotland) Bill has twice passed the House of Commons by large majorities, and that land legislation is urgently needed in Scotland, especially in the Highland crofting counties, will the Government introduce the necessary legislation as soon as the Parliament Bill has been disposed of?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I am afraid that I cannot give my hon. Friend any undertaking at the present moment.

  Stamp Contract.
  Mr. LANSBURYasked the Prime Minister if his attention has been called to the fact that a contract for the supply of stamps was entered into between the Government and a private firm in the year 1901; that no competition was invited; that the amount paid on account of this contract was £97,000 a year; that it has now been discovered that the firm holding this contract are estimated to have made a profit of over £40,000 a year, which is now to be saved owing to competitive prices having been obtained for this work; and, in view of this loss of public money—namely, £400,000, will he cause an inquiry to be set on foot in all Government Departments, in order to ascertain if there are any other contracts either in force now, or likely to be given, without open competition; and if he will say what Minister or other public official was responsible for giving the stamp contract in 1901 to one firm without any competition whatsoever?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: The contract in question was entered into in 1899 without a competition being invited, and the amount

  1207
  payable thereunder has been about £100,000 a year. The saving on the new contracts for stamps and postal stationery will exceed £40,000 a year, but how much exactly of this sum was actual profit to the late contractor I am unable to say. It does not follow that because this saving has been secured for the future a similar saving could have been made By a competition in 1899, and it is therefore not correct to say that there has been a loss of £400,000 of public money. The contract of 1899 was entered into by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue with the approval of the Board of Treasury of the day.
  Viscount CASTLEREAGH: Would the right hon. Gentleman answer the second part of the question?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: That is why no competition was invited. It is pointed out that there was no competition invited.
  Viscount CASTLEREAGH: What about the other Government Departments?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I should like notice of that.
  Mr. LANSBURY: Will the right hon. Gentleman make inquiries into the other Departments as is asked in the question. That is the real point of the question. If we have discovered this how much more is there we have not discovered?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I may point out that it was the Treasury itself which discovered this omission. The contract, I think, might well not have been entered into at that time. I will have no objection of any sort or kind to discover any similar omissions.
  Mr. LANSBURY: How is it to be done. Will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to inquire?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: Yes, I certainly will.
  Mr. WEDGWOOD: Is not this due to the list system of public departments which prevents competition?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: There was another question which I do not think can be entered into by means of question and answer. It had reference to what is called fugitive ink, and the possible reuse of stamps which had been already made use of by some fraudulent person. That complicated the question.
  Mr. MORRELL: Is it now the invariable practice of the Treasury to insist on competition in cases of this kind?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: As far as I know, but I should like notice of that question.
  Mr. MARKHAM: Is fugitive ink worth £40,000 per year?

  Industrial Competition (Japan and China).
  Mr. HUNTasked the Prime Minister, whether, in view of the fact that Japan and China are now manufacturing nations and are increasing the number and size of their manufacturing industries every year, and that their people will work on the average for a few pence a day, he proposes to take steps to protect our own working people and their wages from the importation of competing goods made by this cheap yellow labour?
  Mr. BOOTH: Before a reply is given, may I ask if these Japanese people do not consider themselves to be a brown race, and not a yellow race?
  The PRIME MINISTER: The answer is in the negative.
  Mr. HUNT: May I ask whether manufacturers in this country will be allowed to import these Japanese to work at low wages?
  The PRIME MINISTER: That does not arise out of my answer.
  Mr. HUNT: It does.
  Mr. KELLAWAY: Will the Prime Minister lay papers, giving the wages under Protection in those two nations?

  Poor Law Legislation.
  Mr. INGLEBYasked the Prime Minister, in view of the consensus of opinion as to the necessity for Poor Law legislation on the lines of the uncontroversial portion of the Report of the Poor Law Commission, and in view of the interest taken in the subject by all classes in the country, whether His Majesty's Government can see their way to bring in a Bill dealing with this question during the present Session?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I am afraid that there will be no opportunity for introducing legislation this Session.

  Constitutional Procedure.
  Mr. MacNEILLasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the practice under which Bills proposing to modify or curtail the prerogative of

  1209
  the Crown in respect of the creation of peers belong to that class of Bills affecting the Royal prerogative to which it has been the usage to give the consent of the Crown signified by a Minister of the Crown before their passage through the House in which they originate, or for the Crown to place its interests at the disposal of Parliament in a communication which is signified in like manner by a Minister of the Crown, and in reference to which it has likewise been the usage when such consent has not been given or such communication made to drop such Bills and to declare the proceedings null and void when such Bills have been suffered through inadvertence to be read the third time and passed; whether he is aware that the consent thus given or the communication thus made is announced to Parliament by a Minister of the Crown, who is responsible to the House of Commons for advice tendered to the Crown and is acting on behalf of the Cabinet; and whether there is any intention of a departure from a practice which has been observed from the introduction of the Sunderland Peerage Bill in the House of Lords in 1719; and, if so, what are the reasons of this departure?
  The PRIME MINISTER: Without pledging myself to the accuracy or completeness of all the particulars recited in the hon. Member's question, I am well aware of the usage to which he calls my attention. The latter part of his question asks for a statement of intention in regard to a contingency which, so far as I am aware, has not yet arisen.
  Mr. JAMES HOPE: May I ask whether it is not competent for either House of Parliament to move an Address to the Crown praying the Crown to place its interests at their disposal, and whether, when such an Address has been moved, the Crown has ever consented?
  The PRIME MINISTER: It is undoubtedly competent to either House to do so. I am not sufficiently acquainted with the precedents on this matter to say what answers have been given.
  Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: I think the only precedent is that of 1868, in reference to the suspension of the benefits of the Irish Church. In that case there was an Address moved, and is it not the fact that the Queen gave her consent to put her Prerogative at the disposal of Parliament only on the advice afterwards given of her responsible Minister, Mr. Disraeli, at the time?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I cannot charge my memory with that.
  Mr. SWIFT MacNEILL: Will the right hon. Gentleman take note of it?

  Coronation Holidays.
  Mr. LANSBURYasked the Prime Minister if it has been brought to his notice that the Coronation holidays will inflict suffering and loss to many thousands of poor people owing to loss of wages involved, especially in closing down factories and workshops for a longer period than one day; and if, under these circumstances, he will introduce legislation to compel all employers of labour who insist upon their workpeople celebrating the Coronation by compelling them to take holidays to pay such workpeople wages for such holidays?
  Mr. HARRY LAWSON: Before the right hon. Gentleman replies, may I ask whether he has any reason to believe that employers of labour mean to act in the way suggested, and if the reflection in this question is in any way justified?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I understand that no decision has yet been arrived at as to the duration of the Coronation holidays in London. In any event, no such legislation as is suggested will be necessary as the good feeling of employers may be relied on to show due consideration for their workpeople.
  Mr. LANSBURY: Will the right hon. Gentleman cause inquiry to be made whether the good feeling of employers is as has just been pointed out with regard to wages when holidays are forced on the workers?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I do not think any such inquiry is necessary.

  Isle of Man (Finance).
  Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSONasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will lay upon the Table any official communications which have passed between the Home Office and the Governor of the Isle of Man relative to the expressed desire of the House of Keys that the sole initiative and control of finance should reside with the elected representatives of the people and the opposition expressed to this by the Home Office?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Churchill): I have already promised to lay Papers on

  1211
  the Table of this House. The claim of the House of Keys is that any Member of the Tynwald Court has the right to make and discuss any financial proposal, subject, in the event of the proposal being carried, to the right of the Lieutenant-Governor to exercise his veto.
  Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: Very shortly, I hope.
  Mr. MARKHAM: May I point out to the Prime Minister that the Under-Secretaries and Secretaries of State cannot be heard on this back bench?

  Released Convict (David Davies).
  Mr. STAVELEY-HILLasked the Home Secretary whether David Davies, for whom, on his release from Dartmoor prison, employment was found in the neighbourhood of Wrexham, has reported himself in accordance with the requirements for those persons who are released on ticket-of-leave; and whether active steps are now being taken to ascertain the whereabouts of this man?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative, and to the second in the affirmative.

  Women's Suffrage Movement.
  Mr. ORMSBY-GOREasked whether any information with regard to the conduct of police or others towards a deputation of women suffragists on 18th November last was communicated to the Home Office from Mr. Mansell-Moullin, Dr. Ede, Dr. Flora Murray, or Miss M. McGregor, soon after the event, or whether the first complaints of rough treatment which reached the Home Office were contained in the Memorandum submitted by Mr. H. N. Brailsford?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: One of the persons named called at the Home Office and in reply to general complaints was told that if any specific charge were made it would be inquired into, but no further communication was received from her. A letter to a newspaper by another of these persons was sent to me; and some other vague and general complaints against the police reached me about the same time; but none of them were of such a character as to afford any ground for special inquiry. I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I made to the hon. Member for Blackburn last Wednesday.

  Woolcombing Establishments (Anthrax).
  Mr. JOWETTasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his attention had been called to the report of an inquest held last Friday on the body of a man named Richard Richards, of Bradford, who had been employed by Messrs. Campbell and Harrison, woolcombers, of Shipley, a branch establishment of Wool-combers, Limited, at which it was found that the cause of death was anthrax, contracted in the course of his employment; whether, having regard to the fact that the particular form of attack which caused death in this and many other recent cases rarely occurred among woolsorters, although for many years prior to the enforcement of the present woolsorting regulations such cases were frequent in wool-sorting establishments, he would ascertain whether all the precautions now enforced for the protection of woolsorters when they were working with or near dangerous wool were also enforced when similar classes of wool were dealt with in woolcombing establishments; and, if not, what he intended to do in the matter?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I have received a report on this case. The circumstances were unusual, as the disease did not show itself until some time after the deceased had left his employment at these works. The Wool Regulations require that certain precautions to be observed in woolcombing establishments, and these are fully observed at the works. I am also informed that wasted wool only was dealt with in the carding-room in which the deceased worked. The case calls for further inquiry, which shall be made at once.

  Mines Regulations Acts (Application).
  Mr. JOHN WARDasked whether the Mines Regulations Acts and the Mines (Eight Hours) Act applied to the operation of coal pit sinking?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: The answer is in the affirmative. Section 75 of the Coal Mines Regulation Act, 1887, defines "mine" as including "every shaft in the course of being sunk."

  Liverpool Dock Works (Fatal Accident).
  Mr. JOHN WARDasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether his attention had been called to an accident at the new dock works, Liverpool, on 28th February last, by which one man was killed and four others seriously injured; whether he had any information

  1213
  relating to the occurrence; and if Ms Department proposed to hold a special inquiry into the cause and circumstances of the same?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: The accident is not one that falls within the jurisdiction of the Factory Department, but on a request from the Coroner the Factory Inspector's Assistant attended the inquest, and it appears from the report made by him that the accident was due to the eye in the wire-rope of a crane giving way and letting fall a bucket that was being lifted. The lifting gear was examined twice daily, and the method of making the eye had been in use for fourteen years, and this was the first accident of the kind. As the accident does not fall within the Factory Act, I have no power to direct any special inquiry to be held.
  Mr. J. WARD: Seeing that there are no laws applicable to these works, will the right hon. Gentleman make haste to introduce the Engineering and Public Works Bill, which will give him authority to regulate these operations?
  Mr. CHURCHILL: I am as anxious as my hon. Friend that that Bill should be passed into law, and I am considering how it can best be pushed forward, having regard to the other measures in which the Home Office is interested.

  Richmond Park.
  Mr. LANSBURYasked the hon. Member for Southampton, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether a large portion of Richmond Park had been taken for a private lawn tennis ground near the White Lodge; and, if so, whether he would state the reason for railing off a portion of a public park for the use of privileged persons?
  The TREASURER of the HOUSEHOLD (Mr. Dudley Ward): A small space has been temporarily hurdled off in order to protect the newly-laid turf. The hurdles will be removed so soon as the condition of the turf is satisfactory, and no part of the park will be permanently withdrawn from public use. The ground will be occasionally used by the establishment at White Lodge for cricket. The cost of the improvement will not fall on public funds.

  Post Office Sorters (Promotion).
  Mr. KELLAWAYasked the Postmaster-General whether a scheme would be promulgated on 1st April opening promotion
  1214
  of sorters to clerkships; whether such scheme would include the acceptance of the recommendation of the Parliamentary Committee on Post Office Servants, paragraph 107; and whether he could now give an undertaking that all the officers entitled to the benefit recommended by the Parliamentary Committee, in paragraph 107, would receive favourable consideration in any scheme that might be under consideration, more especially the officers at present suffering rustication under the scheme of partial rotation of writing duties now on trial in the London postal service?
  The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Herbert Samuel): No such scheme is under consideration.

  Justices of Peace (Advisory Committees).
  Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSONasked what is the composition of the Committees formed with a view to advising the Lord Chancellor in regard to appointments of justices of the peace in Scotland; and by whom the members of such Committees were nominated or recommended for nomination?
  The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. Ure): There is no stereotyped composition of the Advisory Committees. The object is to obtain fair-minded and reasonable representatives of different opinions. The Lord Chancellor's ordinary course is to consult with the Lord Lieutenant and with any other persons who know the district.
  An HON. MEMBER: Will the names of the gentlemen to be appointed to these Committees be published?
  Mr. URE: I have nothing to add to the answer just given.
  Mr. BOWERMAN: Is it contemplated to have a committee for London?
  Mr. URE: I cannot say.

  Elementary School Children and Secondary Schools.
  Mr. GOLDSTONEasked what percentage of the children leaving elementary schools during each of the last five years completed, or proposed to complete, a four year's course in a State-aided secondary school in England, Wales, and Scotland respectively?
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Runciman): I have no information which would enable me to answer the question with anything approaching precision.

  Provided Schools (Wales).
  Mr. ORMSBY-GOREasked the President of the Board of Education whether he proposed to reverse a scheme of the Charity Commission of 1862, under which one-third of Lewis Lloyd's charity was made applicable to the maintenance of the Towyn Church School, and to submit instead a scheme depriving that school of this benefit at a time when the Government grant was being withheld, although the parents of over sixty children attending the school desired its maintenance; and, if so, what opportunity would be given to the House of Commons for discussing the matter?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: A scheme has been submitted to the Board under the Welsh Intermediate Education Act, 1889, by the Joint Education Committee for the future administration of Lewis Lloyd's charity. The scheme was published on 24th November, 1909. On consideration of objections a change was made in the draft scheme slightly changing the area of benefit, and the scheme was republished, as amended, on the 18th January last. The period of publication will expire on the 18th of this month. In the meantime, the Board are open to receive and consider any objections or suggestions relating to the draft scheme. With regard to the last part of the question, the usual methods of procedure under the Endowed Schools Acts, of which the Welsh Intermediate Education Act is one, are, as usual, open to objectors to the scheme, with the necessary locus standi.
  Mr. ORMSBY-GOREasked when the sanction of the Board was given to the enlargement of Towyn provided school; and when was that enlargement completed, and at what cost to the taxpayer and ratepayer respectively?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: With regard to the first part of the question, the Board formally declared the enlargement to be necessary on the 30th July, 1910. They had, however, for some time previously, been urging the authority to provide additions to the school premises with a view to the improvement of the organisation so as to enable the school to be used as a practising school for intending teachers. In this connection I may refer the hon. Member to information which I gave him in this House on the 13th July last. With regard to the second part of the question, I understand that the enlargements may be expected to be complete in the course of
  1216
  a few weeks. With regard to the incidence of the cost, I must refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave to the hon. Member for the Oswestry Division of Shropshire on the 18th July last.
  Mr. BRIDGEMANasked the President of the Board of Education what had been the numbers on the rolls and the average attendance, respectively, at the Towyn Church School since July, 1910; and whether he proposed to restore it to the Grant list, in view of the fact that so large a number of parents desired to use the school?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: I was informed last month that there were seventy-five children on the books of this school. The Board were informed by the managers that the average attendance for the quarter ended 29th October, 1910, was 57.3. With reference to the second part of the question, after having regard to the considerations set out in Section 9 of the Education Act, 1902, I have come to the conclusion that the school cannot be considered necessary, and have decided accordingly.
  Mr. BRIDGEMANasked the President of the Board of Education whether, in 1907–8, £100,000 was appropriated to make grants for the building of provided schools where the parents of thirty children desired it, without regard to existing accommodation, in areas where only non-provided schools existed; and how much of that sum had been expended in Wales?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: The sum of £100,000 was voted for the Financial Year 1907–8 to provide Building Grants for Public Elementary Schools. The grants were payable under regulations which provided, inter alia, that such grants would be payable only to local education authorities, and that the Board must be satisfied that the parents of not less than thirty children of school age desired accommodation in a public elementary school provided by the local education authority, and that the only existing public school accommodation of a permanent character available for those children was in schools not so provided. It was further declared that in no case would a Building Grant be payable in respect of school places which were needed to make good a numerical deficiency of public elementary school accommodation, and which the local education authority would, therefore (in the absence of other proposals for supplying

  1217
  the deficiency), be obliged in any event to provide. Sums of varying amount were taken for the same purpose in subsequent years. The total grant which has been paid under these regulations to Welsh Local Education Authorities is £32,720 16s. 6d.
  Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Are we to consider that it is the policy of the Board of Education if the parents of thirty Nonconformist scholars desire an undenominational school that the rates and taxes shall be used to provide it, but that if the parents of seventy-five Church of England children at their own expense maintain a school they are to have no grant whatever?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: No; that would not be a correct statement of the Board's policy.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain what is the Board's policy?
  Mr. RUNCIMAN: Yes; whenever the occasion arises.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that the occasion arises when the Board displays sectarian bigotry?

  Deer Forests (Assessments).
  Mr. WEIRasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he was aware that, although the last Return of Deer Forests in the Highland Crofting Counties, published in 1908, showed that the deer forest acreage in these counties had risen to 2,958,490 acres, the assessment thereon was only £132,041; and, seeing that these deer forests produced high rentals, would he consider the expediency of taking such steps as might be necessary to secure assessments more approximate to the rentals which landlords obtained from sporting tenants?
  Mr. URE: The statutory provisions relative to the valuation of deer forests are not peculiar to these subjects, and appeals to the County Valuation Committees and from them to the Valuation Appeal Court are therefore available. This right of appeal is not confined to the owner of the subjects as valued, but may be taken advantage of by any person having an interest to challenge the valuation.

  Timber Plantations (Income Tax).
  Mr. CHARLES BATHURSTasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether, in
  1218
  view of the prospective serious shortage of timber supply for British industrial requirements, the increasing disinclination of landowners under the pressure of public burdens to continue making timber plantations with the prospect of no financial return to themselves and but little to their descendants for the initial capital outlay and maintenance expenses, and the annual payment of Income Tax and of rates based upon unimproved value in respect of property which during a long period was producing no income whatever, the Government would, in order to encourage the development of suitable land and the employment of labour in the production of British timber, consider the advisability of the entire exemption from both Income Tax and rates of all new plantations of conifers for thirty and of hard woods for sixty years, that was until after the first returns from thinnings, subject to the scheme of planting being approved by the Board of Agriculture and the plantations being maintained to the satisfaction of a Government inspector according to the most approved methods of economic forestry?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: My right hon. Friend is not prepared to accept the suggestion contained in the question.
  Mr. ASHLEY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that when the subject was raised a few years ago by the then Memberber for the Horncastle Division, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, gave a most sympathetic answer?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I know nothing of that reply.

  University Education (Exchequer Contribution).
  Mr. KERR-SMILEYasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will state the amount per head of population contributed by the Imperial Exchequer in the last financial year towards university education in Ireland, in England, in Wales, and in Scotland?
  Mr. HOBHOUSE: I have not yet been able to get the information. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will postpone the question till to-morrow. Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, the rest of the questions addressed to-day to the Chancellor of the Exchequer might also be postponed till to-morrow.

  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Mr. MAURICE HEALYasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether his attention has been called to the recent decisions in Domville's estate (44 I. L. T. R., 169) and Athlumney's estate (44 I. L. T. R., 261), the effect of which is that where the Land Commission refuse to advance the purchase money applied for by an agreement lodged under the Act of 1903, and a new agreement is lodged by the direction of the Land Commission, Section 12 of the Act of 1909 does not apply, and the new agreement can only be carried out as a future agreement under the Act of 1909; and whether he proposes to introduce legislation to amend this defect in Section 12?
  The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Birrell): My attention has been called to the cases mentioned by the hon. Member. I do not think the decisions are to the effect conveyed by the hon. Member's question. As I understand them, the decisions plainly indicate that the new agreements referred to are not agreements entered into by the direction of the Land Commission within the meaning of Section 12 (1) of the Irish Land Act, 1909. I admit the matter involved is one of importance, and I will give it further consideration.
  Mr. MAURICE HEALYasked the Chief Secretary whether his attention had been called to the decisions excluding from the benefit of Section 65, the future-tenant section, of the Irish Land Act of 1909 the assignees of reinstated tenants, even where such assignees were the sons or other relatives of the tenant succeeding to the holding not by purchase but by family arrangement; whether he is aware that the then Attorney-General stated when the section was being discussed that such assignees would not be excluded; and whether he proposes to introduce legislation to cure this defect in the section?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I have been engaged in trying to discover any decision to the effect indicated in the question, but have not been able to find one, and if the hon. Member would kindly refer me to any such case I should be glad to have the matter further investigated.
  Mr. O'DOWDasked the Chief Secretary whether any application has been made to the Estates Commissioners or the Congested Districts Boards by Mrs. Howley, of Tubbercurry, county Sligo, with the
  1220
  view of either of these bodies purchasing the large non-residential grazing farm occupied by her in the townland of Carnalick, on the Mossman estate, situate in the neighbourhood of Cloonacool, rural district of Tubbercurry, county Sligo; and, if so, whether any action has been taken; can he give the name of the head landlord or present owner of this estate; and whether he has been approached in connection with this matter?
  Mr. BIRRELL: No application of the nature referred to in the question has been received by either the Estates Commissioners or the Congested Districts Board, but an agreement signed by Belinda Howley to purchase her holding on the estate referred to under the Irish Land Act, 1903, has been lodged with the Estates Commissioners and will be dealt with in order of priority.
  Mr. BOLANDasked the Chief Secretary whether he is aware that the Congested Districts Board has been requested to negotiate for the purchase of the O'Connell estate, at Caherdaniel, county Kerry; and can he state what action has been taken in the matter?
  Mr. BIRRELL: Agreements for the direct sale of the estate referred to were lodged with the Estates Commissioners in April, 1910. The rentals, maps, and other documents lodged with the Estates Commissioners have been sent to the Congested Districts Board for their ruling as to whether they will give consent to a direct sale. The estate will be inspected at an early date and the Board's decision given.
  Mr. BOLANDasked the Chief Secretary if he can state what action, if any, has been taken by the Congested Districts Board to bring about a sale of the Knight of Kerry's estate, in Valentia Island, county Kerry; and in what position the negotiations now stand?
  Mr. BIRRELL: No negotiations have been entered into for the purchase of the estate referred to. The Congested Districts Board communicated with the agent, expressing their willingness to negotiate for the purchase of the estate, and requesting to be furnished with a rental and maps, but the documents asked for have not been furnished.
  Mr. BOLANDasked the Chief Secretary whether the Congested Districts Board has lately communicated with the agent of the M'Gillicuddy Eager estate at Glen-

  1221
  car, county Kerry, with a view to its purchase; and whether any, and, if so, what steps have been taken to secure the reinstatement of the evicted tenants on that estate?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. The Estates Commissioners have received applications from eight persons seeking reinstatement as evicted tenants on the estate referred to. In six cases the applications were not received within the period mentioned in the Evicted Tenants Act, 1907, and cannot therefore be dealt with under that Act. In one case the lands are now occupied by the evicted tenant's sister and the Commissioners have decided to take no action. The remaining application has been noted for consideration in the allotment of any suitable untenanted land which may be acquired.
  Mr. BOLANDasked the Chief Secretary whether, in view of the repeated efforts by the tenants on the Trinity College estate in and around Caherciveen to complete purchase negotiations, and of the requests made by them to the Congested Districts Board to bring about a sale, he will state what reply has been given by the Trinity College authorities?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Trinity College authorities have recently informed the Congested Districts Board that they are willing to negotiate for the sale of the estate referred to, and that the necessary documents will be lodged as soon as possible.
  Mr. GINNELLasked the Chief Secretary if he will say, when the Estates Commissioners refuse to advance to a vendor in respect of certain holdings the sums mentioned in the agreements, but offer to advance smaller sums, and the tenants are willing to buy at those smaller sums and to pay interest on the larger sums pending completion, as on Colonel James Smyth's estate, Westmeath, whether the Commissioners allow the vendor to withdraw those holdings from the sale and proceed to seizure and eviction or to force the tenants to buy at prices found to be excessive, or whether they exercise their statutory powers to induce the vendor to sell at the ascertained value; and whether they will do this in the case mentioned?
  Mr. BIRRELL: In the case of certain holdings on the estate referred to the Estates Commissioners have informed the owner of the sums they are prepared to
  1222
  advance. At this stage of the proceedings they are not prepared to state what action they will take should the owner not be prepared to sell at these prices.
  Mr. GINNELL: What action will be taken in case the owner carries out his threat?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I think I cannot interfere with that matter. The thing will be considered when it arises.
  Mr. O'DOWDasked the Chief Secretary whether agreements for the purchase of their holdings were, in October, 1908, entered into by the tenantry on the F. H. Knowles and George Keogh estates, situate-in the parish of Geevagh, county Sligo, record No. 8040; if so, whether these estates have yet been vested in the Estates Commissioners; if not, can he state when they will be taken over by that body; and whether, when vested, the waste lands on these two congested estates will be purchased for the enlargement of uneconomic holdings?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The reply to the first paragraph of the question is in the affirmative. The estates referred to are being sold direct by the owners to the tenants, and the Estates Commissioners are not at present in a position to say when the estates will be dealt with. There are forty-two acres of bog on the Knowle's estate which the owner desires to be vested in trustees for the use of the tenants, and eleven acres to be vested directly in some of the tenants. The owner of the Keogh estate has included 382 acres of untenanted land which he proposes to sell to the Commissioners, and they will consider the desirability of acquiring this land when the estate is reached in order of priority.
  Mr. FRANCIS MEEHANasked the Chief Secretary whether he is aware that the tenants on the estate of the late Alice Conway, Mullies, county Leitrim, petitioned the Congested Districts Board to purchase the estate; and whether, having regard to the fact that there is a tract of waste bog and mountain grazing land on this estate from which tenants have been evicted, and that the tenants are being sued for all arrears and their cattle being sold, the Board will take the necessary steps to purchase the property and relieve the congestion in the district?
  Mr. BIRRELL: The Congested Districts Board have received memorials regarding

  1223
  the estate referred to, which is for sale in the Land Judge's Court, and they are at present making inquiries in the matter. On receipt of the necessary particulars of the property, the Board will consider whether it is an estate which they would be willing to purchase.

  Courtown Harbour.
  Sir THOMAS ESMONDEasked the Chief Secretary if he is aware that a portion of the wall at Courtown Harbour has fallen down; and if he will state what steps the Government intend to take with regard to that harbour generally?
  Mr. BIRRELL: I understand that the wall referred to was undermined by the flooding of the river, and that its repair will be taken in hand by the county surveyor in ordinary course. I am advised that no material improvements could be effected at this harbour without a very large expenditure, and a heavy subsequent charge for maintenance. The Irish Government have no money at their disposal for the purpose, and, if they had, it is a question whether it could not be spent to greater advantage elsewhere.

  Revenue Bill (Amendments).
  Mr. BALFOUR: I wish to ask the Prime Minister a question relating to the printing of the Amendments of the Revenue Bill, which comes up for discussion in Committee to-morrow. We only finished the Second Beading at twelve o'clock last night. I am given to understand that the Amendments are not all printed, and that those that are printed are not printed in order; whilst none of the new clauses are printed. It is most inconvenient to ask the House, under these circumstances, to go into Committee on the Bill to-morrow; and I would like to know whether we could not have a longer interval between the Second Beading and the Committee stage of the Bill?
  The PRIME MINISTER: I am told that in the course of an hour or two all the Amendments will be at the Vote Office; and by to-morrow morning, at all events, the printed Amendments will be in possession of Members. There were a great mass of Amendments handed in at the last moment.
  Mr. BALFOUR: The last moment was also the first moment.
  The PRIME MINISTER: I am glad that on this particular occasion the first and the last happened to coincide. The bulk of the Amendments has taxed the printing resources of the House, but, as I say, they are expected to be at the disposal of hon. Members in the course of the next hour or two. I hope that may be sufficient, particularly in view of the fact that it is absolutely necessary, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, to get this Bill in all its stages disposed of before the end of the financial year.
  Lord HUGH CECIL: Why did not the right hon. Gentleman begin earlier in the year?

BILLS PRESENTED.
  COAL MINES REGULATION BILL.
  "To amend the law relating to winding machinery and boilers under the Coal Mines Regulation Act, 1887," presented by Mr. JAMES HASLAM; supported by Mr. William Harvey, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Enoch Edwards, Mr. Wadsworth, Mr. Albert Stanley, Mr. Frederick Hall, and Mr. Thomas Richards; to be read a second time upon Friday, 28th April.
  ROAD THAITIC BILL.
  "To provide for the better regulation of Road Traffic," presented by Mr. GILL; supported by Mr. Parker, Mr. Adamson, Mr. Albert Smith, and Mr. Tyson Wilson; to be read a second time upon Wednesday, 22nd March.
  DEATH CERTIFICATE (CHARGES) BILL.
  "To provide for a reduction in charges for Death Certificates in certain cases," presented by Mr. GILL; supported by Mr. Parker, Mr. Tyson Wilson, Mr. Albert Smith, Mr. William Adamson, and Mr. Arthur Henderson; to be read a second time upon Wednesday, 22nd March.
  BURGH POLICE (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  "To amend the Burgh Police (Scotland) Acts so as to provide for the further regulation of places for public refreshment in Scotland," presented by the LORD ADVOCATE; to be read a second time upon Monday next.
  PEDLARS ACT (1871) AMENDMENT BILL.
  "To amend the Pedlars Act, 1871, as regards persons for whom certificates shall not be required," presented by Mr. ROBERTSON; supported by Mr. Spencer Leigh Hughes, Mr. Charles Duncan, Mr. Rendall, and Mr. Neilson; to be read a second time upon Wednesday, 29th March.
CONTEOVEETED ELECTIONS.

  NORTH LCUTH ELECTION PETITION.
  Captain DONELAN: I beg to move "That Mr. Speaker do issue his Warrant to the Clerk of the Crown in Ireland to make out a New Writ for the electing of a Member to serve in this present Parliament for the county of Louth (North Louth Division), in the room of Richard Hazleton, esquire, whose election for the said county of Louth (North Louth Division) has been declared void.
  Mr. MOOREmoved as an Amendment after the word "do" ("That Mr. Speaker do issue") to insert the words "not before the 8th July."
  I offer no apology for bringing this matter before the House, because the House in every part of it is, I think, directly concerned in seeing that the election of its Members and their return to this House should be in every sense free. I read through the Debates with regard to the Worcester election writ when the matter came before this House, and I find that on that occasion, in a more or less parallel statement was made by the present Prime Minister in which he said it was no party question, but was a question in which the whole House, as the custodian of its own interests, was bound to see that the elecion of its Members was freely carried out. Therefore it is in no party spirit that I bring this matter before the House, but in the interests of the whole House itself, and I take it that Members in whatever part of the House they sit, are equally interested in having free election. I should like also to be allowed to say that I bring forward the Amendment which I move without having had any communication directly or indirectly with Mr. Healy, the defeated candidate. I had no communication of any sort or kind with him whatsoever. I am sure, if I did not make that clear, the mere fact of my bringing the matter forward would have militated very seriously against Mr. Healy if he stands for the Constituency again.
  The House has on this occasion an admirable opportunity of forming its judgment from three different documents that have been printed and circulated in the Parliamentary Papers. I hope hon. Members will study all those documents, because they afford a most interesting light as to the manner in which elections are conducted in certain parts of Ireland under our present so-called free system. The first
  1226
  document is the report of the judges, read to this House on Wednesday last. Of course, it is perfectly impossible for me to read all the documents, and if I only read those parts upon which I place reliance I hope it will not be suggested that I am trying to give a one-sided version of the matter. I have no inclination to suppress anything. The result of that report was this, as the House will remember, that Mr. Hazleton, the present Member for Gal-way, who, I am sure, all of us on this side of the House were quite pleased to find was honourably acquitted of any personal complicity in these proceedings. As a matter of fact, the hon. Member was absent from the country until the day before the election began, and even if he wanted to, his absence would have prevented him taking any part which would involve him in personal responsibility. The judgment proceeds to name seven different persons for undue influence in the nature of intimidation; they name five other persons for bribery, nine persons for treating, and then set out a list of corrupt practices with which their names are associated. With regard to illegal practices, they find three persons guilty of illegal practices in minor matters, such as using hired conveyances for voters, but they find that matters containing false statements of fact in connection with the character of Mr. Healy, which false statements of fact assisted the election of Mr. Hazleton, were actually circulated by the election agent of the successful candidate. That is a serious matter. The judges go on to say that the petition contained a charge of general intimidation at common law, but no charge of general bribery and general treating. I mention these matters because I am anxious that the House should have both sides, and the judges say:—
  "We find the charge of general intimidation sufficient to invalidate the election was not established."
  I do not propose to read anything more from that report. I pass from that, and I come to the general judgment of the judges, because what is very important is this, the House will find when they come to read the evidence and the judgment that out of six polling districts into which this Constituency was divided there were cases of personal intimidation in four. If the House examines the evidence, it will be found that except in two districts, one of which was breast-high for Mr. Healy, and not the subject matter of the Petition, there was only one other district in which there was no personal intimidation, and Mr. Justice Gibson, dealing with this ques-

  1227
  tion of intimidation sufficient to invalidate the election, said that his view of the law was founded upon the Ipswich case. He said:—
  "If you upset an election for general intimidation, it is necessary to show that there was such general intimidation as would have affected the result of the election."
  The petitioners were not in a position to show that the general intimidation could, or did, as a matter of fact, affect the result of the election, but the judges found that no less than seven individuals were guilty of personal intimidation, and the House will see that that intimidation existed in every polling district except one, and the judges differed as to whether there was or not wholesale treating. With regard to this intimidation, I only wish very shortly to deal with two instances. In the first place I ask the House to remember that intimidation is really the most serious of electoral offences. In the first place a man may submit of his free will to bribery, but not to intimidation, and in the second place a man can be so intimidated as to be induced to vote against the man for whom he otherwise would have voted, or to abstain from voting altogether, and that intimidation may also prevent him from giving evidence at the petition.
  4.0 P.M.
  The very information I have received from the constituencies shows that it has been almost impossible to get these people to come forward before the Election Petition Judges, and depose to actual intimidation, which is still being exercised against them to prevent them from giving evidence. In the interests of free election, when the House finds an instance of personal intimidation in every polling district, I think we ought to be very careful before we issue a writ within a week of the finding of the Election Petition judges. I think the House ought to be satisfied that in future free election will be secured. There are seven men reported here. We do not know yet what the Irish Government are going to do with them, but I presume that the law will be put into force, and that they will be tried in July. They have not yet been proceeded against, and at present these very men are walking about free, and in absolutely no way are they being deterred from repeating the same practice if another election was to be held there next week.
  With regard to intimidation, I wish to deal with that on two heads. Mr. Justice
  1228
  Gibson pointed out that in all the oases of election law there is no case where an election was set aside on the ground that the candidate himself was intimidated. The House is not asked to set any election aside on this motion, but we have power to delay the issuing of the writ. Irrespective of party, I put it that if hon. Members found that there was a system of direct personal intimidation against any candidate in any part of the country, I believe they would say at once that that sort of thing ought to be stopped, and that the writ ought not to be issued. I would like the House to see the extent of this intimidation, it should be remembered that Mr. Healy did not represent such a miserable minority at all. In the North Louth election some 4,500 persons voted. The successful candidate, the present Member for North Galway (Mr. Hazleton), received some 2,500 votes, and Mr. Healy got 2,000 votes. That was quite a respectable minority that ought to be heard and a minority whose candidate should not be intimidated or interfered with. I will give the House some evidence as to the intimidation of the candidate. On the 4th September the hon. Member for Tipperary went down to Dundalk and told him that a General Election would shortly come upon them and they ought to be ready for it. On the 8th September Mr. Healy went down to Dundalk, and an excursion train brought adherents of his to a meeting to be held there. There was a riot at the station. Although they were protected by the police the train was riddled with stones. When Mr. Healy went down to the Town Hall one of his supporters, a doctor, was assaulted, and they had to take refuge in a small upper room. Mr. Healy had no public meeting, and the judges drew attention to the fact that from the 8th September until the day of the poll it was never possible for Mr. Healy as a candidate to have a public meeting in Dundalk. That is called the free exercise of the Parliamentary voice of the electorate. How did Mr. Healy spend his time in Dundalk? The words of Mr. Justice Gibson are very powerful on this point. Mr. Healy could not go out into the street from the time the election began without a bodyguard of friends never less than twenty-five, and sometimes the number was 100. He could not go out without seventy policemen to enable him to conduct a canvass in his own Constituencies. The representative of the United Irish League found the finances for the campaign, and organised it very well. In-

  1229
  spector Henderson, the district inspector, was called, and his evidence is all that I will refer to. The House will remember that this is the officer responsible for the peace of the town, and I will quote from his evidence in the Blue Book:—
  "Cross-examined by Mr. Sullivan.
  "7928. Could Mr. Healy with safety to his life go through the town of Dundalk canvassing at this last election alone and unattended?—Before the polling-day?
  "7924. Yes?—Well, whenever he was going out I always tried to make it my business to know if he was going out; and if I knew where he was going, I used to make it my business to see that there were men on the route, because I was afraid of him being attacked by individuals.
  "7925. Then the answer is, it was not possible for him to carry on unattended the ordinary business of a candidate at the election. Is not that true?
  "Mr. Serjeant Moriarty: I do not think that is a correct interpretation.
  "Mr. Sullivan: Is not that so?
  "Mr. Justice Gibson: He is cross-examining the witness; he is being asked.
  "Mr. Sullivan.
  "7920. Is it true that Mr. Healy could not with safety to himself unattended, carry on the business of canvassing the electors?—Well, he always ran the risk of assault, I think, by individuals.
  "Mr. Justice Gibson.
  "7927. In other words, his appearance in the street would be attended with a breach of the peace. Is that it?—It might at any time.
  "7928. Is that what you anticipated?—Yes.
  "Mr. Justice Gibson.
  "7935a. How would you know the hour to make those arrangements to have the men on the look-out?—We used to go to the hotel and ask him to let us know his arrangements beforehand, and he always did so far as he possibly could.
  "7936. On the polling day here in Dundalk, did you endeavour as far as you could to keep the mob outside the Court House railings?—The mob, yes, but there were an awful lot of people we could not interfere with.
  "Mr. Justice Madden.
  "7937. Was he surrounded by a number of his friends and accompanied by a number of the police. About how many police would there be?—Coming home at night there would be about 35 police on duty.
  "7938. What is the total force of police in Dundalk?—The town has 31 or 32, but we always had extra men in on those occasions.
  "Mr. Justice Gibson.
  "7939. How many extra men would you have on that occasion—70 would there be?—70 there would be altogether.
  "7940. You would attach half the force to attend Mr. Healy?—There would be 35 or 40 on duty between the hotel and his rooms. There would be 30 with him and 10 a little further off.
  "7941. They were told off for the special purpose of protecting Mr. Healy?—Yes."
  I assure the Committee I could refer if necessary to passages of evidence in the Blue Book in which witnesses assert that Mr. Healy would have been murdered if he had gone about without the police in this compact force. That is the effect of the evidence of a witness called by the respondents and the men responsible for the peace of the town. I wish to draw
  1230
  attention to what Mr. Justice Gibson said on this matter. Of course I have reminded the House that Mr. Justice Gibson said that general intimidation was not proved. He said in his judgment:—
  "In a popular sense the December election was not free. The candidate in Dundalk was under police protection, and was not allowed to exercise the same right of canvass and appeal as was enjoyed by his opponent. It seems strange that the law, as it at present stands, should apparently restrict its special protection to the ordinary troops, the voters, engaged in the election battle without securing the position of the general, the candidate, who is left as an individual to the protection which the law affords to an ordinary citizen as regards assault, etc. Interference with the liberty of the candidate may, however, supply a strong argument to support on inference of intimidation of his followers, though it may not in itself constitute a distinct substantive ground for impeaching an elector. No authority on this point was cited, and I have not been able to discover any case of the present type, a case which I and my brother sincerely trust will not again recur."
  Mr. Justice Gibson goes on in his judgment to deal with the difficulty which Mr. Healy experienced, and he comes to the polling day. What happened on the polling day? Mr. Healy went out to a place called Louth accompanied by a force of twenty police. He arrives in the town and goes to the polling booth. There he is met by a hostile mob and Mr. Healy is imprisoned on the day of his own election in one of the polling booths. The sergeant said to him:—
  "It is as much as your life is worth to go out. I have telegraphed for extra men and you cannot leave until they arrive."
  That is the position of a candidate having a free election. Mr. Justice Gibson says that it is an intolerable thing, and he goes on to say:—
  "The crowd proceeded to assail the schoolhouse with stones, Mr. Healy being inside The constabulary did what they could to disperse the crowd with the baton. Finally things got so menacing that the head constable had to requisition a further force of forty men, which would make up, with the twenty-two already on the ground, a corps of sixty-two altogether. Meanwhile Mr. Healy was anxious to leave, but in reply to a question from him, the head constable told him that it would be dangerous to life and limb if he went. The result was that Mr. Healy was held up by this fierce mob for two hours, losing thereby a most important part of the vital day of the contest, when his presence was so desirable to inspirit and encourage his forces."
  When the House appreciates the position Mr. Healy was in, successful or unsuccessful, popular or unpopular, hon. Members will agree that he was entitled to a free run. It cannot be said that any candidate for Parliament is having a free run or ordinary fair play if he has to go about, when he has 2,000 supporters, with a posse of police, and when he is not allowed to hold a public meeting in the town where half the electors of the whole Division reside. I will leave that part so far as Mr. Healy is concerned. There is another part which I certainly should be

  1231
  failing in my duty if I did not bring forward. I have no desire to say anything offensive to hon. Members below the Gangway, but I wish to refer to the treatment of Protestants at that election. There is a Protestant minority in North Louth, and we have evidence in this Blue Book as to how five different Protestants in five different polling districts were treated when they came to the poll. We are told that in Ireland, although the Protestants are in a minority, they hold the balance of power, but in this case, where they attempted to hold a balance of power they were beaten and assaulted, and one got his jaw broken. That is how the Protestant minority is treated in Ireland. I should like to read what Mr. Justice Gibson has found with regard to that, because it relates to the question of a free election, and I think that minorities of all people—notwithstanding the view of the Chief Secretary for Ireland on this point—ought to be allowed to act just as independently as any other member of the community. Mr. Justice Gibson, on page 9, says:—
  "It shows there is an idea entertained that, in disputed elections between Nationalists, Unionists should not be allowed to Vote."
  That is what the Petition Judge finds on the evidence before him, and I may say on my own responsibility, having read the book, there is any amount of evidence that will bear that out. It is like an election in some of the Southern States of the United States of America, where there may be a majority of blacks on the register, but where, if they dare come to vote, the minority of whites make them feel it, and the result is the blacks stay at home. The Nationalist theory is that when there is a Nationalist fight the Unionist should stay at home, and there is plenty of evidence to support that. There is, in the first place, the case of a man named Bolton. I have his own evidence here, but I think it is sufficient to give what the judge finds. Mr. Bolton is a respectable gentleman, who has been the High Sheriff of Monaghan, and he is a magistrate and a man of position. If hon. Members wish to find his evidence in the Report of the Evidence, they will find it at Question 418, but I think, if I may be allowed to read how the judge deals with the case, that will shorten matters:—
  ' At 3 o'clock Mr. Bolton, J.P., late Sheriff of County Monaghan, drove up in his car to rote. A cry was raised 'No hunting. Bolton,' and the crowd gathered round, booing and shouting. Then a voice, heard by
  1232
  Sargeant Leer, called out 'Let him vote,' which strongly corroborates a remark attributed by John McLoughlin, to Murray, Mr. Hazleton's agent, in the booth. The latter, when McLoughlin demanded that the violent conduct outside should be stopped, replied that no voter was interfered with until after he had voted, and then it did not matter. Murray denies this, but he was not a candid witness, and I do not believe him. It is noticeable that all the serious assaults in the various districts on the 8th December took place after the voter had been polled, or after the poll bad closed. Punishment for voting is, of course, just as much intimidation as threats before.
  "To return to Bolton, having voted, he was at once savagely assaulted with stones. The police at that place, twelve in number, were unable to protect him. He was got by them into Byrne's yard, but the mob made their way through Bryne's front door, and finally Bolton was put into a stable behind for protection. Ultimately, he was got away, one tooth knocked out and his jaw fractured."
  In the evidence his reply was that, being a Unionist, and, I believe, a Protestant, he was prevented from voting in a Nationalist election. He was asked:—
  "What happened then?—But the man on the left side hit me on the jaw just there (describing).
  "What was the result of that blow?—One tooth was knocked out, and two or three are loosened still, and my jaw was fractured. The doctor says it is fractured. It is not well yet."
  Then he is asked:—
  "Are you suffering from the effects of it still?—It is not healed up yet. I feel it still."
  That was a most brutal and unprovoked assault, which no one can justify. It was committed in open daylight in the presence of a crowd, who were wearing the Hazleton card and intimidating everyone whom they suspected of being a Healyite. Then there was a Protestant clergyman—a Mr. Strickland. The police protected him from physical violence, but you will see how the crowd treated him. The evidence with regard to him will be found at Question 1004. He came up as an outvoter to register his vote, and he came running into the booth, followed by two men.
  "He was followed by two men, you say, were these members of the mob or voters?—They were not voters.
  "When Strickland came in, did he make any complaint to the presiding officer?—One of the men pushed his head into the door and said, 'put him out, he has no right in here'; Mr. Strickland then said, 'this is scandalous treatment,' and he complained of being jostled.
  "Did you offer to escort him back to his car?—Yes.
  "Did you leave the booth with him for that purpose?—I did
  "Will you describe what happened?—When we were going up the pathway, leading from the school-house to the village street, a crowd of about eight or nine met us half way down the field and surrounded us, and they shouted out 'You Orange bastard, you, how dare you come here to vote.' and they shook their fists in his face. By this time the police were round us and we got up to the end of the pathway and on to the street, and there was a bigger crowd there, and they repeated the same."
  Then it goes on to say that they eventually got Mr. Strickland into his motor car which was about twenty yards away, the crowd shouting and groaning. Mr. Strick-

  1233
  land, fortunately for himself, escaped, but that is ample evidence of intimidation in the town of Louth. There is another polling district called Ravensdale, where there was a poor Protestant basket maker, an humble man, who had the audacity to come and vote against the Nationalist candidate. What was his fate? It is also found in the Judge's Note and in the Report of the Evidence at Answer 2595. The story is there told in his own words:—
  "Are you a basketmaker?—Yes.
  "Where do you live?—Ballymascanlon.
  "Did you vote at Ravensdale?—Yes.
  "Were you a supporter of Mr. Healy?—Yes.
  "Did you go to vote at Ravensdale on the 8th of December?—Yes.
  "Will you tell my Lords what happened to yon?— Between seven and eight o'clock at night I went in and voted, and, when I came out. I was struck on the back of the head with something and knocked to the ground, and my face was cut I was knocked into a dazed condition.
  "When you came out of the booth were you struck?—Yes.
  "Just as you came out?—Yes, in a couple of seconds.
  "Was anything said before yon were struck?—I heard a remark passed.
  "What was it?—There is an Orange bastard.
  "And immediately after that were von struck?—Yes.
  "Were you then brought into the house, where Dr. Blake told us he attended you?—I do not remember. I was in a dazed condition, and I do not remember what happened for a good while afterwards. On my way home, Sargeant M Enteggart had me.
  "Were you laid up for anytime?—T was ill in bed two days and felt the effect a good while afterwards.
  "Do yon know anyone in the crowd?—It was too dark. I did not know anybody in particular.
  "About how many were there in that crowd as far as you could gather?— I should say 60 or 80, as far as I could gather. I would not be particular."
  I leave that with regard to Ravensdale. I am not going into the question of the doctor who attended him and was assaulted. I am dealing with the Protestant minority who, according to Mr. Justice Gibson, Nationalists say have no right to vote. I am now coming to a very powerful case, the case of the other polling district, called Dromiskin. Although general intimidation is not found, hon. Members will find individual cases of intimidation. There were two men called Murdock. They were subpœned. They were unwilling witnesses. They did not want to give any evidence at all. Mr. Sullivan, petitioner's Counsel, referred to them as cowards. He said they were evidently unwilling to give evidence, and it was cowardly of them. Mr. Justice Gibson says, on page 9 of his notes:—
  "Two gentlemen, named Murdock, were also examined. Archibald Murdock voted, but before voting went to buy a daily paper, when he was struck a slight slap—."
  1234
  You will hear what a slight slap was. The poor witness was afraid to describe it as anything else.
  "A slight slap, as he described it, by Patrick Barran, a carpenter, whether in good humour or not he professes not to know.
  "William Murdock, his brother, who did not vote on 8th December, had, about a week before the 8th, walking on the road on his way home at night, been followed and assaulted by an unknown man. He stated he did not connect this assault with the election, but he had no enemies. He had, he says, made up his mind for some time past not to interfere on one side or the other,
  "When these two witnesses were giving their evidence, I did not attach much importance to it, but my suspicion as to the gravity of the incident was aroused when the witness Rogan stated that in a public-house, after he came from voting, Barran approached the counter and, striking it, said he had broken one Unionist's nose that morning, and he would break another before he went home. If this refers to the socalled slap which Archibald received, it is a melancholy example of successful bullying. Murdock no doubt voted, but he submitted to an unprovoked and insulting blow without complaint, pretending that he did not understand the character of the act. In any case, Barran's remark, which Barran was not called to contradict, shows that an idea is entertained that in disputed elections between Nationalists, Unionists should not be allowed to vote.
  "This incident appears to represent successful moral intimidation. It is upon voters, not properly belonging to the rival parties that intimidation has its most certain effect. Why run a risk for one to whom the voter has no special duty and for whom his feelings are lukewarm? "
  That is the story of a Free Election as conducted by the United Irish League. After they had made their report the judges were obliged to give notice to those who were to attend to see what excuses they could make, and on the same day that they sat a Nationalist Convention was held in the town, Nationalists being sure that the House of Commons would think so little of interfering with the election that a new Writ would go as a matter of course. The candidate selected was Mr. Roche, from Cork. I could not get a copy of his speech for the purpose of this Debate, but he got up in the public place at Dundalk and ascribed his own defeat in Cork to the fact that the Protestants in Cork voted for his opponent. That is a good way to begin! That is calculated to allay party differences and religious bitterness! And now, after that suggestion that it is no disgrace to be beaten by a Protestant vote, this gentleman says that the House of Commons is to give him a Writ to enable all this performance to be repeated again, within one week of the finding of the judges. This is a matter in which the honour of the House is involved. It is a matter affecting the whole dignity of this House. The Amendment I have the honour to move is that no election should be held in this division for four months, to enable things to steady down, and, above all, to give any candidate there

  1235
  may be a fair field and no favour. I believe the Motion is one which should commend itself to the good sense of the House. I would point to the letter issued by Cardinal Logue to the priests in North Louth—I have not a copy here, but it is a letter suggesting that, in view of the great bitterness of feeling existing in the constituency, they should take no part, one side or the other, in order to allow that bitterness to die out. I am not aware that there will be any change if an election is held next week, but it certainly will be a lesson if the election is postponed for four months. That will enable the Writ to go out in the middle of July. I do not suppose it will be suggested that there are any 12th July celebrations in Dundalk; at any rate, the Writ can be issued on the 16th or 20th, and then hon. Members below the Gangway will get their colleagues returned this year instead of having to wait till next. I respectfully submit under all the circumstances, that it would be in the interests of free election and fair play that the Amendment which I move should be adopted, and that the Writ should not be issued for four months.
  Mr. CHARLES CRAIG: After the way in which my hon. and learned Friend has put the arguments in favour of his Motion before the House it is not necessary for me to say very much. I should like to point out to the House the fact that the intimidation, which, I think, all will admit was very bad, actually began before the election contest commenced, and that it did not cease for hours and even days after the closing of the polling booths. The judge very pertinently pointed out that the punishments for outrages committed on persons after voting in a certain way was just as much intimidation in the eye of the law, and I should say in the eye of common sense as the intimidation which had taken place before the polling. My hon. and learned Friend confined himself to a few cases of intimidation where it was exercised against Protestants. That was a part of the case he was bound to lay before the House first of all, presuming, as he did, that only a small number of hon. Members have read the judges' report, and that a still smaller proportion have read the evidence published in the Blue Book, for the reason that it is a very bulky document, and has only been available for a very short time. But I think that those who have read these documents 'will agree that the intimidation was by no
  1236
  means confined to the case of Protestants. There is instance after instance in the Blue Book, all referred to by the judges in their judgment, and there is actually a case of a Roman Catholic priest who was most grossly insulted, as Mr. Justice Gibson pointed out, in his judgment, by his own fellow-religionists. There was the case of a man called Sweeny, who, after he had voted, was followed for a mile and severely kicked. Then there was the case of a man called Waters, a postmaster, whose windows were smashed after he had voted. Then there was the case of Father Owens, the case of the Protestant clergyman, to which my hon. and learned Friend has drawn attention; the case of Mr. Bolton, and a number of other cases equally bad. There was a doctor who happened to be driving towards one of these places—Dr. Sellars—and on the assumption apparently that he was going to vote for Mr. Healy he was refused admission to the town. I think the facts laid before the House show that the intimidation at this election was such that if it took place at an English election the constituency would be disfranchised for a very considerable period.
  All we ask is that in this matter we should be treated like the rest of the United Kingdom. There is an unfortunate tendency, I am sorry to say, to treat us in Ireland as though we were a different class of human beings altogether, and to tolerate things in Ireland which would not be tolerated in this country for one second. We say that in this case Mr. Healy had no chance whatever, for the simple reason that his meetings were stopped, and that he was unable to carry out the ordinary business of election times. He was unable, as the successful candidate stated on one occasion—I might almost say he boasted it, for in a speech in which he was contrasting his own position with that of Mr. Healy he said that Mr. Healy had been unable to hold one single public meeting throughout the whole course of the campaign. That was a very strong order. It is on the ground of intimidation that we chiefly rely in asking this House to adjourn the issue of the writ for four months.
  The question of treating, Mr. Justice Gibson looks at in the right way. He says the Irish are of such a hospitable disposition that it would not be right to treat the cases of treating that came before him seriously. I agree with him there. I think, as compared with this systematic intimidation, that these cases of violent outrage,

  1237
  these other matters, such as treating, which I admit in the eye of the law are as serious as intimidation, sink into comparative insignificance on this occasion. The only other matter I need refer to is with regard to the leaflet which was sent out early in the election. What led to this particular leaflet I need not refer to at length, but it was sent out obviously with the object of injuring Mr. Healy's chances of being elected. I should like to read the leaflet to the House, but before doing so, I would ask the House to remember that it is one of the boasts of hon. Members below the Gangway—and the House must bear in mind that Mr. Healy himself was a member of the party below the Gangway for upwards of thirty years—it is one of their boasts that they have never accepted office from the Government and never recommended any of their friends, either in or out of Parliament, for preferment by the Government. This leaflet was issued by the United Irish League and freely circulated throughout the Constituency. It is headed:—
  "Place Hunting At Home. Tim Healy's family list. Mr. Carthage Healy, brother, appointed Local Government Inspector 1907, by the Corrupt Liberals!! £500 a year. Mr. Joseph Sullivan, cousin, examiner of Title, Irish Land Commission, £800 a year. Anthony Carroll, cousin, Crown Solicitor of Cork, £500 a year! Arthur O'Connor, ex M. P., for years Healy's fellow wrecker in the Irish Party, an English Judge. £17,000 a year! M. Healy, senr., father. Postmaster, Lismore, County Waterford. A. N. Sheridan, Election Agent of Mr. Healy. Dundalk, Clerk of the Crown and Peace, Louth, £600 a year. The Corrupt Liberals!!"
  These are not my words. They are the words of the leaflet. It continues:—
  "Jeremiah Howard, Henchman of Wm. O'Brien, Director U.I.L. and Wrecker 1907 Land Commission, £800 a year."
  And so on. The others are all similar to that. But what I want to put before the House is the fact that the accusation is that Mr. Healy procured all these appointments for these various gentlemen. "Whether he did so or not is not the question at all. The document was sent out, and it cannot be denied for one moment that a document like that, falling into the hands of a large number of illiterate, and probably not very intelligent voters, must have had a very considerable effect on the minds of many of the persons who received it. Twenty thousand copies of this leaflet were issued and circulated. I might remind the House that the allegations contained in this leaflet were held by the judge not to be true. That, of course, makes the matter worse. The finding of the judge was that Mr. Warren circulated
  1238
  during the election a false statement with regard to the personal character and con-duct of Mr. Healy, his honour, his rectitude, and patriotism, and that these false statements materially assisted the election of Richard Hazleton. I submit to the House that my hon. Friend and myself have laid sufficient facts before the House to justify it in acceding to the Motion we have put forward. As my hon. and learned Friend has said we do not desire to put off the date when another election shall take place for any unreasonable time, but we do say that, after such a bitter contest as took place, after a contest in which such conduct was indulged in as we have drawn attention to, a certain reasonable amount of time should be allowed to go by before another election takes place. I have much pleasure in Seconding the Amendment.
  Mr. JOHN REDMOND: Before the right hon. and learned Gentleman who is to speak on behalf of the Government addresses himself to the Amendment which has been made, I desire to say a very few words indeed. I have not risen for the purpose of quoting precedents showing that the House of Commons has never taken in similar circumstances the course now recommended to it. I leave that to the learned Attorney-General, who is far better qualified to deal with the case on those lines than I am. All I can say on that point is that, in my judgment, having been a long time in this House, and having heard the good many cases brought forward about the issue of writs after petitions, I never heard a weaker case made. [A laugh.] That is my opinion. I cannot expect hon. Gentlemen to agree with it, but I must be allowed sufficient freedom of speech to express my own opinion, and I repeat, that that opinion is that a weaker case for the postponement of a writ was never made, and no precedent can be quoted where the action recommended has been followed by the House of Commons under similar circumstances. I have risen because I want to say a few words as to what is evidently the guiding motive of the proposer and seconder of this Amendment. In my opinion, these hon. Gentlemen do not care very much whether the writ is postponed or not. They have seized this opportunity in order, if they can, to bring evidence to show that the Protestant minority in a constituency in Ireland is liable to be intimidated and ill-treated at election times. It is on that question I desire to say a few words. First, let me allude to

  1239
  the fact that the Protestant minority in this constituency is very large. The hon. Gentleman used the word "Protestant" where; he ought to have used the word "Unionist." You will not once find in the whole of the judgment of Mr. Justice Gibson, the word "Protestant" used. With reference to the five individuals who have been picked by the hon. and learned Member as Protestants who were ill-treated or insulted with the exception of one, who apparently was a Protestant clergyman, there is no evidence whatever that they were Protestants.
  Mr. MOORE: I think the hon. and learned Gentleman is mistaken. He will find on Page 8 there is a reference to the effect that, while there is no substantial violence proved in the district of Ravens-dale, yet there is the case of a Protestant basket maker who, after he voted, was struck on the head, knocked down, and badly hurt.
  Mr. JOHN REDMOND: If I have misrepresented the hon. and learned Gentleman in the smallest degree I will at once withdraw, and I will qualify what I said that the word Protestant was never used by Mr. Justice Gibson by saying it was used in regard to one individual only, but the hon. and learned Member apparently desired to show that everyone insulted or ill-used in this connection, and whose case was brought forward, was a Protestant, whereas he ought to have contented himself with pointing out that they were Unionists. What is his case about the ill-treatment of the Protestant clergyman? It is a most deplorable incident—an incident which I and all my colleagues deplore and resent in every possible way. The hon. Gentleman who followed him had to admit that a Catholic clergyman was equally attacked. Therefore I point this out to show that it is not an attack upon the Protestant minority, but it was an attack upon men who differed in politics, and it was a political attack. I, for my part, deplore that there has been any intimidation whatever. I deplore if there has been any violence whatever, but I protest that it is a monstrous thing to ask this House to believe that it was intimidation practised against the men because they were Protestants, because we have evidence that the intimidation was used equally against Catholics who took the same line at the election. As a matter of fact what is the position of the Protestants in the county of Louth? Take the town of Dundalk,
  1240
  which is mainly a Catholic town, and the business of which depends mainly upon the Catholic population in the town and outside. The chief traders and business men of that town are Protestants. They are successful and thriving Protestant traders. Their trade depends entirely upon the good-will and the custom of their Catholic fellow countrymen, and in the name of those Catholics of Dundalk and the county of Louth I protest with all the vehemence of which I am capable against the suggestion that these attacks were conducted against men because they were Protestants. There were only five of these cases mentioned in a constituency of several thousands, and you are asked, because of these five deplorable cases, to disfranchise the Constituency.
  You are told that the Unionist minority, which the hon. and learned Gentleman called the Protestant minority, were intimidated, and his proof of this consists of these five cases which he has produced. There are in the Constituency, I am credibly informed, some 800 Unionist voters. Did they abstain from voting? No, because the poll at the last election was a larger poll than before, and therefore I say that the attempt made by the hon. and learned Gentleman—in no party spirit as he says—the attempt which he has made must fail. He endeavoured to induce the House of Commons to believe that because five men were insulted or attacked in the Constituency, and these five men happened to be Protestants, notwithstanding the fact that others were attacked who were Catholics—he tried to make out that from these facts the House is to be led to infer that there was something in the nature of a Catholic and Protestant row over the election. That is all I desire to say. We deplore that there has been any interference with freedom of speech or with the freedom of any single man in the constituency. I deplore it most earnestly, and all through my public life I have done my best to see that perfect freedom of speech is given to every man who has differed from me in public life in Ireland, and I sincerely trust that in every election in future that will be done, but whether that happens always or not, we cannot say, we cannot control. Some men are so unpopular that they cannot go down to address a public meeting in the town hall of Birmingham without having their lives endangered, and we well know that when cases like that take place we ought not to wonder, because there is a limit to

  1241
  human endurance. You cannot prevent turmoil and trouble in exciting times everywhere, but I say my colleagues and I desire to do it, and that, so far as this election was concerned, we regret that there was any interference with freedom of speech or freedom of action even on the part of five men; but we say that no case whatever has been made out why the constituency should be punished by the withholding of this writ, and I ask the House of Commons to defeat the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member.
  The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Rufus Isaacs): I have intervened at an early stage of this Debate in accordance with the practice of the House of Commons, that a Law Officer should address the House and, to the best of his ability, state to the House what the position is with regard to the matter before it. Of course, the House is entirely free to follow its own view. The House is quite master of the situation, but it must remember that this matter has been inquired into before by two Judges, that it has taken some ten days for the examination of witnesses, that there was a great deal of examination and cross-examination of those witnesses, and the speeches of counsel on both sides which the learned Judges who tried the case heard. They must not forget that over 150 witnesses were examined during the course of this Petition, and that the Judges, after hearing the evidence, considered it most carefully. It is quite clear that they did that as both the learned Judges have said after considering it again and again, and after repeated conferences with each other they came to the conclusion which they have stated in their Report to this House, which is before the House, and which is to the effect that they do not report that in that constituency as a whole undue influence or corrupt or illegal practices prevail, or that there was reason to believe that such corrupt or illegal practices did prevail. That is a very important finding. The House will allow me to say it is the important finding in this matter. We have to be very careful in considering the question which is now before the House which has in a sense not only to consult and safeguard its own honour and dignity, but also is acting in a judicial capacity. We have, therefore, to keep before us what the ques-is upon which the House has to pronounce judgment. May I point out, as no doubt the vast majority of Members know, we
  1242
  are not considering here whether the Petitioner proved his charges against the Respondent—we are not considering here either the interests of one party or the other—we are not concerned either in the slightest degree with the parties in the matter which is before us, or whether the voters were Protestants or Roman Catholics. What we have to determine is whether the Report of the Judges who have given study to this matter justifies the House in arriving at the conclusion that the constituency should be disfranchised—that a large number of voters, 5,761, on this register, shall lose their vote because of occurrences of this kind.
  Mr. MOORE: Shall lose their votes for four months.
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: The question is whether they shall lose their vote for four months, which they will do if the Amendment of the hon. and learned Gentleman is carried, because there are altogether apparently seven persons who have been found guilty, out of a total of 5,761, of undue influence; five persons have been found guilty of bribery and eight persons have been found guilty of treating. That is the result of all this examination and of all this inquiry before the Judges. I desire at the outset to state what I am quite sure the House will already have gathered from me, that in what I am about to state to the House and in what I have already stated I am putting forward my views, and I am not in the slightest degree intending or meaning that I am dealing for the moment either with one party or the other. What I wish to deal with is the constitutional question which arises. I do not propose either to go into the details of the cases which have been referred to, because I do not think hat really helps us. We have the judgment of the learned judges. The hon. Member has selected the best material that there is in the judgment—I do not complain of it, it is quite natural—and in order that he might make his observations as pointed as possible he has put before us the best that can be found in the whole of this volume, containing many pages from his point of view and the worst as concerns the constituency. The reason I do not go into the discussion of the acts of the particular persons involved in the charges, or who have been assailed—eight cases, I think—is because it would be impossible to do so, as the cases of a number of persons who are charged are before my

  1243
  right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General for Ireland, who will have to determine what course should be taken in accordance with the law in consequence of this decision. That makes it impossible to discuss the various detailed items of evidence in regard to the persons implicated. I pass from that to this observation, that accepting all that is said by the learned judges as I do, and condemning as I do, and as I think every hon. Member of this House must—condemning in the very strongest terms the course of conduct which has been pursued by those persons who are implicated in the report of the learned judges, deploring as one must do the interference which has been described by the learned judges, we still must come to the real question, which is, is the constituency to be disfranchised?
  May I point out to the House why it is that the judges report, as they do invariably in accordance with the Act of Parliament, to you, Mr. Speaker, in reference to this matter, not only that they do not find—if that was the fact—that there was undue influence, or either corrupt or illegal practices prevailing in the constituency as a whole, but that they have to go on to state whether they have reason to believe that such corrupt or illegal practices have prevailed. That is the most important difference between these two reports. In the first what the learned judges are dealing with is the evidence which is before them and on which they have come to the conclusion on the sworn testimony whether corrupt and illegal practices have prevailed in the constituency as a whole. But when they have disposed of that their duty is not finished, because this House requires the judges to do something further, and that is to say whether, notwithstanding that there may not be legal proof in this case of undue influence and illegal practices, yet the judges nevertheless have reason to believe or seriously to suspect that the practices which have prevailed in this constituency would amount either to undue influence or corrupt or illegal practices. It is their duty to report that under the Act of Parliament.
  5.0 P.M.
  The House will see at once why that is. When the House has got that report it determines whether or not there shall be a Royal Commission appointed on a joint address of both Houses of Parliament in order to inquire into the report of the judges, and then the report comes back, and this House
  1244
  determines what shall happen as the result of that Commission. I will ask the House to bear in mind, on the constitutional aspect, how important that is. If the Royal Commission issues the effect is that the constituency is on its trial. It is no longer a question of a petition against the particular sitting member. The constituency has an opportunity of being heard. The judges or the Royal Commissioners go to inquire, and they cite those witnesses whom they think necessary before them, in order that they can examine into all the circumstances, and then they report to the House, as was done in the Worcester Petition. In the Worcester Petition the judges reported that they had reason to believe that corrupt and illegal practices prevailed extensively throughout the constituencies.
  Mr. MOORE: There was no intimidation.
  Sir R. ISAACS: The hon. and learned Member knows quite well that does not affect the question. In terms intimidation is not mentioned, but it is surely a corrupt or illegal practice.
  Mr. MOORE: It is for the House to decide.
  Sir R. ISAACS: Everything is in a sense for the House to decide, but intimidation is actually one of the practices mentioned in the Statute as a corrupt or illegal practice. If there is intimidation, of course, the judges have to refer to it, and that is the reason why the judges refer to it in this report. When that came before this House the House, as the result of a joint address with the other House, obtained a Royal Commission, which was sent to Worcester and inquired exhaustively into the judges' report and into this system of corruption and illegal practices, and the result was that the Commission reported that amongst the poorest classes of voters they did find that there were some 500 who had been bribed, and therefore came within the category of persons guilty of corrupt practices. Thereupon the Commission reported to the House, and the House delayed for a short time, in order that the then Attorney-General, Sir John Lawson Walton, might consider what course he should take. Subsequently, when the matter came before the House again in a few weeks, there was a Debate, and it was pointed out by the Attorney-General that he desired to have a little more time, as the report had only just come, so that he might enquire and see what course should

  1245
  be pursued. The matter came on again on 17th December, 1906. There was not a much longer sitting of the House and the matter was postponed until the beginning of February, 1907, and then there was a Debate upon it and a Motion proposed, and in the end, I think by a majority of two, the writ was refused. But the important point is that, in reference to Worcester, you have first the report of the judges, which is a condition precedent to the joint address for a Royal Commission, and, having got your report from the judges, and the Commission having proved that there was an extensive system of bribery, the House naturally did what it was perfectly right in doing, and what it is always bound to do, it expressed its view upon the report of the Commission. There is this essential difference, therefore, in the case we are now dealing with and the Worcester case. In this case the judges have reported that they have no reason to believe that there was this extensive system of either corrupt or illegal practices, and, further, there has been no Royal Commission issued, and there has been no report. When I come to deal with the Amendment I will point out what a very important matter that is, and I shall submit that the course which has been taken by the hon. and learned Member is quite novel. There is no precedent for it at all. I know no case in which there has been such a Motion produced without any Commission having sat to inquire and report to the House. No Commission can be issued in the ordinary course upon the joint address of both Houses—the ordinary constitutional practice—because there is not the condition precedent to that joint address, on a report of the judges that corrupt and illegal practices had extensively prevailed in the constituencies. That is fatal to the Amendment, and it is a complete answer.
  Just consider what it is that the hon. and learned Member is asking the House to do. Because you have some sixteen or seventeen persons out of these 5,761 electors who have been found guilty by the judges of corrupt and illegal practices, you are to say that for four months you are to disfranchise the constituency. That is practically for the whole of the Session, or until next year, except that it will allow some very short interval of time during which a Member, if returned, could be present here. But what is to happen during that four months? What is the justification for the House of Commons saying that the electors, who have a right
  1246
  constitutionally to be represented here, are to be deprived of that right? If you have the justification of the report of the judges or the Report of the Royal Commission consequent upon the report of the judges, of course, you have the amplest justification for any course of that character which you may take. But when the constituency has never been heard upon its defence the House is to be asked to visit it with the serious punishment of four months' disfranchisement, when, as I say, it has never had an opportunity of putting itself right before either judges or Commissioners who would be sent down in the ordinary course to inquire into the matter. I ask the House to bear in mind that this is a novel form of procedure to which this House has never resorted, and I will say something further which I am quite sure will have the support of nearly every Member of the Houses, and certainly of those who have been law officers. Ever since 1868 this House has parted with its primary control over these controverted elections. It no longer sits as a Committee or appoints its own Committee to inquire into these allegations of corrupt practices, and it has delegated the functions of the House to the judges, thinking it better in its wisdom that there should be inquiries by the judges who should pronounce upon the matter after hearing the evidence. I have looked into the precedents and I know of no case in which the judges' findings have been set at naught or in which there has been any Motion by this House refusing to give effect to the findings of the judges. I am not suggesting for the moment that the House has not the power to do it if it chooses. I certainly should not like to-lay it down as my view that, notwithstanding the reports of the judges, the House of Commons could not, if it thought right, come to some different conclusion, but the House never has done it, and' never will do it without examining the evidence and without seeing and hearing all the witnesses.
  If you do accept the judges' report, as the House always has done, the result is that we ought not to give effect to the Amendment. We ought to take our stand on what the judges have said, and it would be a great injustice to this constituency if it was to be disfranchised on the Amendment. I cannot help saying—and I am quite sure the hon. and learned Member will bear me out in this—that reading through the evidence and the judgment the one thing which is very plain

  1247
  was that there had been treating, and, as the judges show, drink was at the bottom of the whole of this trouble. Again and again, it is pointed out, particularly by Mr. Justice Gibson, who says that by eleven o'clock in the morning there was a drunken crowd. I am not suggesting that it is entirely due to drink, but a great deal of the disturbance which took place was in consequence of drink. My advice to the House will be to allow the Writ to be issued and to vote against the Amendment, viewing this matter, as I am sure the House will, not as a party matter at all. Although I am speaking on behalf of the Government and stating the view at which I have arrived and the view which the Government take in the matter, it certainly is not the intention that the Government Whips should be put on to tell in the Division The matter must be left entirely open to the House of Commons. I conclude by asking the House of Commons to pause long and to hesitate long before it acts contrary to all precedents, before it takes a step that would really disfranchise a constituency which, if the opportunity were afforded, would show that there was no ground for saying that there was at the recent election general intimidation or general corrupt practices. On these grounds I ask the House of Commons to reject the Amendment.
  Sir EDWARD CARSON: Before I come to the observations of the learned Attorney-General, may I refer for a few moments to the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Waterford (Mr. John Redmond)? He is never tired of telling us in this House of his great anxiety for fair play being shown to the northern part of Ireland. I can assure you that you hear a great deal more of it in this House than in Ireland, and I think if the hon. and learned Gentleman really wanted to give us confidence in those assurances, of which I have no doubt he will hear frequently in this House in the course of next year, he could have got up and said to the Government that it would be a very good example to accede to the Amendment proposed by my hon. Friend (Mr. Moore). I think he would have been doing far more in that way to show his earnestness and some degree of that fair play of which even a scintilla does not exist among those whom he wishes to remain possessed of the franchise. There is another matter to which the hon. and learned Member referred. He commenced with the usual
  1248
  taunt that we have seized this opportunity for bringing the case of the Protestants and the Unionists of Ireland before the House. [Cheers.] That is received with cheers. Why! that is what we are here for. The idea of hon. Members below the Gangway as to the way of carrying out fair play towards Ireland is that they should have a monopoly in bringing before the House the case of their friends, but every time we attempt to bring before the House the case of the minority we ought to be taunted with that as a matter unworthy of political representatives. I do not think that we mind very much the taunt of the hon. and learned Gentleman or other hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway. We know perfectly well that there is nothing would please them better than that we should never be heard in this House at all. We know perfectly well that there is nothing they hate more than that we should bring up the treatment of the minority in Ireland, because it is much easier to carry out oppression if oppression is never heard of. I can assure the hon. and learned Member that he may taunt us as often as he likes, but we will go on whether we are called Protestants or Unionists, or, as we are called by his friends in Louth Orange bastards, or, as the Chief Secretary for Ireland would call us, "carrion crows." We shall go on under all these amenities of public life, doing the best we can for those with whom we are concerned in Ireland.
  Nobody can read this report without seeing that the election which took place in Louth was one which, to talk of it as free election would be an entire misnomer. There was really no election. There was a period of violence, ending in the success of a Member of this House who has been unseated by the learned judges who tried the petition. I put this to the Attorney-General. It is really ridiculous in the face of this report to say to anybody who will read it and take the trouble to understand it, that if you now give another election you are going to have a free election, such as we understand it as laid down by the law. Are you going to tell me that in an election to-morrow, in which those men who went through what is described in the evidence in this case would take part you are going to take the risk again? In point of fact, do you think that any candidate would be found to go down and take the same risks as Mr. Healy did? What is it that is called an election there? What is it that you are asking to repeat? for that is what it comes to. The candidate when

  1249
  he goes down will not dare to hold a meeting during the whole campaign. From the time Mr. Healy went down there he was not able to hold a single meeting. In the first two days, the windows of his committee rooms were smashed, and from that time they remained boarded up. From 28th November to 8th December the polling day, Mr. Healy did not attempt to canvass the electors. Do you think Mr. Healy is the kind of man to be intimidated? His efforts in Dundalk were confined to the committee rooms in which he was protected by a large force of police, while others were posted along he road. According to Mr. Henderson, the district inspector, the number of police retained for this duty would be thirty-five or forty, and special arrangements had to be made beforehand by ascertaining when Mr. Healy would leave his hotel, and this was necessary to avoid a breach of the peace. Then the judge goes on to say:—
  "The state of things I have described is deplorable. It represents the exclusion of a candidate from his rights as a citizen."
  Is the next candidate to go down to-morrow and be excluded from his rights as a candidate and his rights as a citizen? Can you expect anybody of independence or self-respect to go down to a place where those things have so recently occurred. There is another matter to which I would earnestly call the attention of the Government. I pass over now the imprisonment of Mr. Healy on the polling day. That seems to be treated as a very light matter. I will pass over the fact that on the polling day a large number of people were injured, but I desire to make this remark. When the hon. and learned Member for Water-ford and the Attorney-General talk of the few number of people who are mentioned in the evidence as having been intimidated do they have any power of imagination at all? Do they not realise what it is for those men to come up in Louth before the judges and give their evidence? Do they not wonder that the witnesses come at all? Do they not know perfectly well that every man who came up to give evidence ran the risk of injury to himself or his property? We have the miserable story of the two Murdocks who came up to give evidence. One of them was accused of being a coward, and the judge, who knew something of the district, would not adopt that suggestion, but rather gave his sympathy to the man who, under the compulsion of a subpœna had to come forward and face the terrible consequences which might,
  1250
  and which did, occur to him for coming forward on this occasion.
  Therefore, I say that the number of cases proved is as nothing compared with the number of cases which may have occurred. Let me call the attention of the House to this, because it is really a most important part of the judgment. The judge said that in his opinion for a considerable period the proceedings at Louth inclined him to infer general intimidation, but on consideration of the numbers voting he had come to the conclusion that he was mistaken. His Lordship added that the intimidation practised, however, "suggests plan and system and not a casual ebullition." To that, I believe, is due almost all the rows and riots that take place at elections in this country. You had the whole force of one of the most powerful organisations that has ever existed—the United Irish League—at the back of this intimidation. You had them paying the expense and employing those people, and you had system and plan, and not a mere ebullition. Have the system and plan gone? Has the United Irish League gone? No, Sir; you have all the same material existing there as existed on the day of the polling. The Attorney-General tells the House that you are going to have free election in that constituency with all the same machinery for intimidation and all the same machinery for dragging into the dirt the very idea of representative institutions in this country.
  There is another matter mentioned in the course of this report about which I must say a word. It is the matter of the illiterates. Perhaps the Attorney-General does not know as well as I do the facts in relation to the number of illiterates voting in elections in Ireland. Nothing shows the constant and continuous intimidation which is practised there as much as the statistics of illiterates voting in elections in Ireland. It is quite misleading to suppose that the proportion of illiterate voters is nearly as great as would appear from the statistics. We all know perfectly well in Ireland that the electors are canvassed beforehand, and if they are suspected, they are told that they must declare themselves illiterate, and must go into the polling booth and get the paper signed so that it will be known how they vote. What happened in this case? Nothing shows more the amount of intimidation that took place than the statement at page 11 of the judges' report. Listen to this: "The second and more weighty point is that fifty-nine of those

  1251
  who declared inability to read in December had voted in the ordinary way in the January before." You do not forget how to read between January and December. Does not the Attorney-General when he talks of three or four or a dozen people, see anything behind that loss of power of reading by these unfortunate people, who have, because they have lost the power of reading in those few months, to make a false declaration? Not that they like making false declarations; but they have to do so. Can a more pitiable example of the demoralisation of a whole constituency be shown than by this one fact? The Attorney-General says there is no precedent for the Motion now proposed, and I have no doubt he has looked conscientiously and carefully into the matter. But I think there is no precedent for allowing a Writ in conditions similar to those disclosed to-day. We put the case upon this broad ground, that if the Motion is novel so are the circumstances, and that it will be asking this constituency to go through a farce, while there is this organised system of intimidation in existence to proceed immediately with the new election after this petition. We say it is a reasonable thing not to disfranchise the constituency, but we also say that it is a reasonable thing to have some short postponement of the issue of the Writ in order that there may be some chance of matters returning to their normal condition in Louth, if a normal condition as we understand it ever exists there at all. I quite agree with the Attorney-General as to a Report from a Royal Commission. That has many objects, one of the most important being to investigate the facts and get at—because there are very wide powers given to those Commissioners—the individuals who have been guilty of these various practices. But the Attorney General does not suggest for one moment that there may not be circumstances in which this House ought to interfere, and I submit that it would be ridiculous and absurd for us, on whom is is thrown the duty of, as far as possible, seeing that men returned to this House are returned by the free votes of electors, to allow this Writ to be issued.
  The ATTORNEY-GENERAL for IRELAND (Mr. Redmond Barry): I think that the House will agree that the right hon. Gentleman has omitted—and very remarkably so—challenging the proposition laid down by my right hon. Friend the
  1252
  Attorney-General (Sir Rufus Isaacs) to the effect that the uniform practice of this House has been not to interfere in the direction suggested by this Amendment, except in one special set of circumstances. That is when the election judges have reported to this House that corrupt practices have extensively prevailed in the district, or that there is reason to believe that they did extensively prevail. The House will remember how very pointedly the Attorney-General expressed the view of the Government, which is that the uniform practice of the House has, ever since the passing of the Act in 1868, been to act upon that principle. The matter has been discussed on frequent occasions in this House, and the law officers of both parties have been heard upon it, and there has been a long uninterrupted agreement between them, as I understand the precedents down to the present moment, to the effect that the House should not interpose except under some such conditions as I have indicated. It is very easy, of course, for the right hon. Member to pick out special individual cases for criticism, and beyond all doubt deplorable instances did occur during this election, both of intimidation, of bribing, and treating; and these cases, as my right hon. Friend has pointed out, will, of course, become necessarily the subject matter of investigation elsewhere; but the existence of these special cases, it must be agreed upon the precedents, is no ground whatever for taking the course that is proposed by the hon. and learned Member for Armagh; and it would be thoroughly inconvenient, particularly for me to follow the investigation into these special cases, for the reason that I have indicated, that each and every one of them will probably become the subject matter of investigation in the criminal courts in Ireland in the near future. But has the right hon. Gentleman in any way challenged at all the proposition of the Attorney-General?
  This matter has been considered on repeated occasions in this House, and perhaps the House will allow me to read one or two passages from a Debate which took place on the Motion for the issue of a Writ for Rochester City on 3rd February, 1893. On that occasion the late Lord Russell was the Attorney-General, and he spoke in the Debate in presence of the present Lord Alverstone, Sir Richard Webster, as he then was. The first thing he discussed was what the law and practice of Parliament had been on such a question as this. The proposal was then

  1253
  made, as it is now, to suspend the writ. In that case there was not, as there is not in this case, any report from the judges to the effect that any extensive corrupt practices had prevailed in the course of the election or that there was any reason for believing that they had prevailed; and the right hon. Gentleman will find that upon that distinct specific ground both these learned Members of this House agreed that the House should not interpose and should not suspend the writ. Lord Russell said:—
  "But while my hon. Friend gave the House some portions of the evidence it is not possible to consider in all its fulness that evidence unless it is fully before the House, and even if it were it would be impossible for this House to constitute itself the judge of that evidence, and go behind the report and the results founded on the evidence by the learned judges whose responsible duty it was to try this petition."
  And, he adds:—
  "If the House came to the conclusion that the evidence in the case was such as to justify the imputation of the existence of widespread and general corruption in the borough the Government of the day on whom the responsible duty was imposed proceeded to the next step, which was to bring in an Act for the disfranchisement of the borough."
  That, he pointed out, was the practice prior to the Act of 1868; but a notable feature in this Debate is that the hon. and learned Gentleman makes no such proposition to the House at all. His proposal, as I understand it, is for a mere suspension for a period of four months to be followed by the establishment of a commission of inquiry, and, above all, not to be followed by a Bill for the disfranchisement of the constituency. Later on, Lord Russell said:—
  "The House will recollect that under the more recent Acts the mode of procedure has been entirely changed, and now, instead of a Committee of the House having cast upon it the duty of enquiring into the alleged corrupt practices, that duty is performed by the judges of the land, and their report takes the place formerly occupied by the report of a Committee of this House."
  He was followed by Sir Richard Webster, who stated:—
  "I do not know that I could have expressed or should wish to express my understanding of the law in regard to this matter in better or clearer terms than the Attorney-General has used. I only desire to say this, that in the first place the interference of this House, whether based upon the report of the old Committee, or upon the report of the Election Judges has, so far as I know, never gone the length of interfering with the issue of a Writ unless there has been a distinct report that corrupt practices have extensively prevailed in the borough."
  Sir EDWARD CARSON: Is there any case dealing with intimidation at common law?
  Mr. REDMOND BARRY: The right hon. Gentleman will remember that now, by express statutory definition under the Act of 1868, and most certainly by Section 3
  1254
  of the Corrupt Practices Act of 1883, corrupt practices is defined to mean treating, undue influence, bribery, and personation, and the right hon. Gentleman will find that in Section 2 of that Act undue influence includes the very charge of intimidation. All this was prior to 1893, when the discussion from which I am just now reading took place in the House. I may quote one other sentence from Sir Richard Webster:
  "It is worthy of note on this case, that the language to which the hon. Member referred clearly indicated—whatever may be their criticism of certain practices—that neither of the learned judges thought there had been extensive corruption in this particular case. I should be disposed to say this, adding my observation merely to what the learned Attorney-General said, I believe the House has never for a great many years suspended the issue of a Writ unless prepared to direct a prosecution or to order an enquiry or direct a Bill to be brought in by the Government of the day, with a view to the disfranchisement of the borough."
  It was a most remarkable fact that the hon. and learned Member for Armagh disclaimed any such intention. He does not ask the House either to establish a Commission or to direct a Bill to be brought in by the Government with a view to the disfranchisement of the constituency. I do, therefore, think that the speech of the right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken is remarkable for the fact that he has failed absolutely to challenge the proposition laid down by the Attorney-General as to what the practice of the House has been, founded upon these precedents which I have just quoted. These instances of intimidation, bribery, and treating will be the subject matter of investigation in the Courts in Ireland, but I do submit that they constitute no ground whatever for the course suggested by the hon. and learned Member, which, if taken, would have the result of disfranchising the constituency for practically the whole of this Session. The increase in the number of illiterate voters which has been referred to by the right hon. Gentleman was one of the matters closely present in the minds of the learned judges who investigated this petition, and was discussed by both judges, particularly by Mr. Justice Gibson; and, in the result of the important fact for the consideration of this House, is that the tribunal to which this matter was committed decided that in their opinion no general intimidation did prevail, and no reason existed for believing that general intimidation did prevail, which is the essential condition laid down for such interference as the hon. and learned Member for Armagh proposes. I should like, in conclusion, to point out one other matter. It is a very notable thing that Mr. Justice

  1255
  Gibson, whose judgment has been so much quoted in the course of this Debate, after having discussed the question of general intimidation, and discussed as well specific cases of intimidation, of bribery, and of treating, on Page 18, says that he came to the sixth head, and he introduced that subject by saying that it was the last and, perhaps, the most important matter relied on as invalidating the election, and he referred to the alleged violation of the Act of 1895. The House will know, or anyone who has investigated the matter will know, that the reference was to the publication in the constituency of the charge against Mr. Healy of being connected with "placehunting." It is a remarkable circumstance that, in the estimation of Mr. Justice Gibson, this should be the most important matter relied upon as invalidating the election. I find that Mr. Justice Madden, on Page 23, with reference to the same point, said:—
  "I shall deal in the first instance with the alleged violation of the provisions of the Illegal Practices Prevention Act, 1895. I do so because this is, in my opinion, the most important branch of our enquiry, both in itself and in its relation to the conduct of the election."
  It certainly is a most notable circumstance that two learned judges, when all this evidence of intimidation was brought before them, and when they gave their judgment, should have placed primary reliance upon that matter of the violation of the Act of 1895. But this, of course, could not be put forward by the hon. and learned Member as any ground whatever for the course that he is now inviting the House to take. I submit, according to the clear practice, as absolutely settled by this House in relation to such questions as that now at issue, that no case has been made out by the hon. and learned Member for the Amendment he has proposed.
  Mr. F. E. SMITH: I cannot help thinking that the House must feel that the Attorney-General, in the speech which he has just made, has treated the matter solely and exclusively as one of legal precedent. I do not know any reason why it should be treated entirely as a matter of legal precedent, having regard to the statement very properly made by the Attorney-General for England, that he would not attempt, or could not attempt, to exclude the right of the House of Commons to deal with a matter of this kind on its merits, and without regard to technical considerations
  1256
  on one side or the other. I would point out, in answer to the statement made by the Attorney-General, that the uniform practice in matters of this kind has been only to deal with one case, that is to say, where corrupt practices have extensively prevailed. It really would have been useful to the House if either the Attorney-General for England or the Attorney-General for Ireland had explained to an audience of laymen what is the meaning of the doctrine of the extensive prevalence of corrupt practices. It has a technical meaning. It does not in the least mean what the ordinary lay Member of the House may assume it to mean. It has not necessarily any relation to the number of persons who carry on these practices, or the number of persons who are convicted of them. What it does mean is the extent to which corrupt practices have taken place in relation to the number of voters and to the result on the particular election. It is obvious that the Law Officers of the Crown both for England and Ireland are not placing the whole facts of the case before the House, and they say that the matter of corrupt practices extensively prevailing is a purely technical consideration. I understood that was the argument of the Attorney-General. If it was not his argument, then I am quite at a loss to see where is the distinction between the Worcester case and the Louth case. Having heard the Debate on the Worcester case, and read the judgment in that case, I take it the distinction attempted to be set up between the Worcester case and the Louth case is that in the former the judges found that corrupt practices did extensively prevail. If that is so, the question, and the only question the House has to consider, is in the moral and not in a technical sense. In reply to the Attorney-General for Ireland, I would point out that if it be true that my right hon. Friend (Sir E. Carson) did not deal at length with the technical question, he certainly did deal very extensively with the moral question, and received no answer of any kind at all.
  What, in fact, was the argument of the Attorney-General for England? It was that if you examine the number of cases, only seven persons were found guilty of undue influence, five were guilty of bribery, and eight were guilty of treating. He said that twenty persons out of five thousand were guilty of corrupt practices, and was the House on that number to come to the conclusion against the judges that corrupt practices extensively pre-

  1257
  vailed? May I be allowed to point out, in the first place, that if the House of Commons arrive at that conclusion there is no sense in which with propriety that conclusion could be arrived at against the finding of the judges. The judges most carefully laid down that, in arriving at their conclusion, that corrupt practices had not extensively prevailed, they were dealing only with the technical question with relation to the result on the election. The Attorney-General asked whether we are to disenfranchise Louth because twenty persons out of 5,000 have been guilty of illegal practices. For myself, I think a far more satisfactory criterion is that the House of Commons should deal with this matter in the moral sense. Is there any Member of the House, wherever he sits, who will be bold enough to get up and say that if the Writ is issued tomorrow in Louth, a fair election is likely to be possible. I specifically ask the Attorney-General for Ireland, apart from the technical argument, whether he will take upon himself the responsibility of saying that, in his opinion, if the Writ were issued to-morrow there would be a fair election. I follow up that question by another—if the Attorney-General for Ireland is not prepared to assure the House that there would be a fair election if one were held to-morrow, may I ask the Attorney-General for England whether this case is not expressly one of those which he so carefully reserved when he said there were cases in which the House of Commons might properly intervene? I would point out that the hon. and learned Gentleman who spoke below the Gangway did not contend that if an election took place in Louth to-morrow it would be a fair one. No one who has read the judgment could possibly put forward that contention.
  I may perhaps be allowed to summarise the terms of the judgment. It comes to this, that when Mr. Healy went down to Louth to commence his campaign he was confined to his committee rooms, which he could not leave except in the company of 150 or 200 of his friends, and he was protected by a large force of police. Is there a single Member of this House, wherever he sits, who would say that he was having a fair election, if, on going down to his constituency to begin his campaign, he could not go out into the streets unless accompanied by 150 or 200 of his friends, and guarded by a body of forty police. I ask this further question—will anyone give us a guarantee that if there is an election
  1258
  in this constituency to-morrow, and Mr. Healy goes down there, the services of 150 friends and of forty or fifty police would not be required by him? What happened on the actual polling day in the Hackbalscross district? There was a large and excited crowd. That crowd was attacked by a larger crowd, which then assaulted Mr. Healy, and probably would have inflicted serious injuries upon him if he had not been rescued and protected by the police. The judges found on this in terms that a deplorable state of things existed in Louth, and that as far as Mr. Healy was concerned he was excluded from the pursuance of his candidature and from his rights as a citizen. What is the use of lawyers telling us here that there has been no general intimidation? Can it be said that there was no general intimidation because only the names of fifteen persons are mentioned?
  Sir RUFUS ISAACS: That was not why I said it; it is because the judges said it.
  6.0 P.M.
  Mr. F. E. SMITH: I certainly understood the Attorney-General for England to ask the specific question, Because twenty people are guilty of illegal practices is that a reason for disfranchising 5,000? The fair and reasonable answer to that is that it was not a case of twenty persons being guilty of illegal practices; it was the case of a crowd assuming the whole control of the election from the moment Mr. Healy commenced his campaign to the moment when Mr. Healy was violently assaulted within the polling booth by a large crowd, who prevented him from exercising his rights as a candidate. If that is true, it is obvious that there was here a case of genuine intimidation of the clearest possible kind. I take another passage in the judgment, that dealing with the Hackbalscross. The judges found that there were fourteen police on duty, and throughout the day Mr. Healy's voters were boohed and jeered at by an organised crowd. Who organised that crowd? I do not know, but I might perhaps ask hon. Gentlemen below the gangway who organised it. Is it suggested this is a case in which there was no genuine intimidation in the moral sense. We have Mr. Healy prevented from pursuing his candidature, and we have the crowd jeering and boohing Mr. Healy's voters. Is it suggested that this was not an exercise of general intimidation against the supporters of Mr. Healy? We find in the report that fifty-nine persons declared their inability to

  1259
  write in December, but they voted in January. How did the Attorney-General for Ireland deal with that? Anyone who listened to the argument of my right hon. Friend (Sir E. Carson) will admit that the reason that these fifty-nine were able to write in January, and not able to write in December, was that they were afraid to give their votes. Nobody will dispute that conclusion at all. The Attorney-General says that these facts were before the judges, who did not find that there was general intimidation. That is not an argument, with all respect to the Attorney-General, that a lawyer ought to address to an audience of laymen, because they would only conclude that the judges did not mean general intimidation in the popular and moral sense, instead of which the judges report as to its effect on this election. However gross this intimidation might be on general grounds, if it did not affect the election the judges would have found in the same way. This is what the judge said:—
  "After patient consideration of the entire evidence we have come to the conclusion, my learned brother and I, that though not in person guilty of overt acts save so far as Byrne used the expression Orangeman in presence of a booing crowd, Byrne and Dr. McGinnity sanctioned and connived at the lawless proceedings going on under their eyes on the part of a mob which, when attacking the police, they were able to control."
  Let the House observe what that finding comes to, and the findings of the Judges have been accepted by all parties—by the Leader of the Irish party and by the Law Officers. It comes to this, that two prominent supporters of the successful candidate connived at and sanctioned lawless proceedings going on under their eyes on the part of a mob which was attacking the police, and which they could have controlled if they had attempted to control it. Here is a case in which we are told that there is no general intimidation, and that there ought not to be a short suspension before the writ is issued, on the ground that there has not been intimidation. This is a case where you find an organised crowd preventing the electors exercising the simple freedom of the franchise and destroying the whole efficient working of representative institutions. Reliance is placed on the absence of names, and because of all that crowd in the case of only one name is identification possible, showing how entirely fallacious is the argument that because many names are not forthcoming that there has not been general intimidation. Let me invite the
  1260
  House to consider the language in which the judge summarised the whole case:—
  "To summarise, the Election must be declared void upon the following grounds. Corrupt practices by the agents; that is undue influence, bribery and treating; illegal practices by agents, that is, payments otherwise than by the election agent; payment for conveyance of voters to and from the poll; false statements of fact for the purpose of affecting the return of T. M. Healy in relation to his personal character and conduct published by the respondent's election agent and circulated at his expense, and which materially assisted the return of Mr. Hazleton."
  I do not suppose that anyone will dispute if I say that here you have a remarkable accumulation of illegal practices, everyone of which has been found by the judges to exist in the constituency. Before the House can arrive at a conclusion in this matter surely it is very desirable that in all parts of the House we should be clear as to the principle on which this jurisdiction rests, and on which it ought to be exercised by the House. I agree with the historical retrospect of the Attorney-General. He spoke of the period at which the decision of these matters was diverted, for well understood and generally approved reasons, from the House of Commons to the judges. But the House of Commons, it is equally well known, has always retained in its own hands the power of dealing with the finding of the judges when such findings have been reported to the House. On what principle ought the House of Commons to exercise the jurisdiction which we still retain, because it is clear that unless there is some agreement as to the power on which it is exercised it would be impossible for the House to give what it is desirable the House should give, namely, a consistent decision, and a decision which agreed with their own views. On this point we have the great advantage of having the guidance which was given to the House of Commons by the then Attorney-General (Sir John Lawson Walton) in the case of the Worcester Petition. I hope I have satisfied the House whatever technical distinction may be established between Worcester and Louth, no moral distinction of any kind can be established. In fact, if a moral distinction could be established, it would be more in favour of postponing the Louth Petition than there was for postponing the Worcester Petition, because it is obvious there is a stronger reason for postponing the writ for Louth than there was in the case of Worcester. Sir John Lawson Walton, speaking on 17th December, 1906, said:—
  "If they were to ignore all these facts and issue the writ in not haste, what became of the law which remained to be vindicated."
  Sir RUFUS ISAACSmade an observation which was inaudible to the Official Reporter.
  Mr. F. E. SMITH: I agree that the principle is maintained. The then Attorney-General, proceeding, asked would it not make the task of purifying elections very much more difficult if it could be said that on the Motion of one of the great political parties the House threw that principle to the winds. Worcester was very severely punished after the Attorney-General had made those observations. The matter did not arise until 14th February, 1907, when the question of the issue of the writ was again on. The Attorney-General (Sir John Lawson Walton) rose and informed the House that, in the view of the Government, the matter ought to be left to the House of Commons, and that the Government would not oppose the writ. Mr. Hemmerde, who was then a Member, opposed the writ, and gave reasons which commended themselves to large numbers of hon. Gentlemen opposite and to hon. Gentlemen from Ireland below the Gangway, who voted that the issue of the writ should be suspended, and who were parties to that disfranchisement of Worcester. What were the arguments used by Mr. Hemmerde? Mr. Hemmerde said that the House was jealous of the purity of elections. He earnestly asked the House whether they would be justified in allowing an election to take place in which the sole question would be who was responsible for the Petition. That argument appeared so forcible that other speakers complimented Mr. Hemmerde upon the clearness with which he stated that point of view. The hon. Gentleman who followed him on the same side also made it clear that if an election was immediately to occur the only question would be who had been responsible for the Petition. The House of Commons on that occasion, by a majority of two, and obviously there was a considerable minority which would have been a majority if it had not been for the votes of Irish Members, the House decided that although Worcester had been punished by a year's disfranchisement that punishment had not been adequate or complete, and so it was disfranchised for a further term of one year.
  I cannot help thinking that the punishment of disfranchisement, and in this I agree with the Attorney-General, is a very severe one. For my own part I entertain the strongest possible objections to it. The most obvious objection to the punishment is that, and I think Members of the
  1262
  House of Commons in all parts ought to appreciate this, that it is a confession of weakness of our judicial side. If you disfranchise a constituency it is quite certain you will disfranchise many innocent persons. In the case of Worcester or Louth, of course, the House of Commons would find it difficult to identify individuals, and in order to punish a few you are going to deprive the whole of a constituency of representation. That is a very grave step to take, and I agree with the Attorney-General for Ireland that it is a step the House of Commons ought to delay very greatly before committing itself to. I would venture to say that there is one ground, and one ground only, which justifies this House in disfranchising a single elector in any constituency, and that is a ground, and an appropriate ground, of public policy. And that is if it has been made out and established that there is grave doubt that a fair election can be held if a new election is ordered by the House of Commons. Beside that question whether a fair election can be held, those technical points of precedents and of distinctions between widespread intimidation in the legal sense and in the moral and popular sense ought not to weigh in the balance for a moment. The only question is, can a fair election be held? I challenge any fair-minded man in any part of the House, and I will not exclude from this challenge hon. Gentlemen from Ireland sitting below the Gangway, who always have the courage of their opinions, and I would ask them two questions, first are they here to give the House of Commons any assurance that there will be a fair election. If they say that they are able to give such an assurance, we are entitled to ask the second question and press for an answer, and that is what guarantee have they that those who were responsible for the wholesale intimidation in December last will have seen the error of their ways, and that they are not further exasperated by the Petition and by these proceedings to-day?
  Mr. BYLES: The House cannot complain of the lack of legal advice. I think four eminent lawyers have spoken from the benches opposite, some of them a little long-winded. There were two from these benches, and one from the Nationalist Benches who addressed the House upon this subject. Perhaps, therefore, the words of a common layman may be listened to for a moment or two. I propose to vote to refuse the issue of the writ

  1263
  for North Louth. I voted to refuse the issue of the writ for Worcester, and on precisely the same grounds I intend to give my vote against this writ. I am quite sure my great friend, Sir Charles Dilke, who always took a very strong line, and who taught me a good deal about these matters, if he had been here would have led us into the No Lobby. I cannot forget that a very large number of hon. Members who are going into the No Lobby did not vote to refuse the writ for Worcester, and therefore cannot claim the consistency of which I am now boasting. I brush aside the ingenious legal cobwebs which have been spun for our edification, and I look at the thing from the commonsense point of view as it appears to me. I say that no one can read the judges' report and the evidence in this Petition and say that there has been a free and pure election. This question, as we have been told, is a question for the House of Commons and not for the Government. It is for the House to decide, and it is our duty to take care that only men who have a free, open, and pure and fair election sit on these benches as far as we can control. We have the opportunity of controlling now. I have been impressed, and am sure others here have been impressed with the argument put by the hon. and learned Member who has just spoken, and by the hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin that you could not go to an election
  to-morrow in the constituency of Louth and have a free and fair election. Hon. Members below the Gangway opposite have been challenged to get up and say that we can, but they have not done so.
  Mr. DEVLIN: We all challenge it.
  Mr. WILLIAM REDMOND: You are insulting the whole of us.
  Mr. BYLES: It must be evident to everybody that at the last election there was a determined attempt on the part of the victorious party to defeat their opponents by any means. They would stick at nothing, and I have not the slightest doubt that that would be done again. I know I am going into what many people think is the wrong Lobby; therefore, I am driven to say that my motive for so acting is not my friendship for Mr. Healy, nor is it to support the minority in Ireland, some of whose arguments have nearly caused me to change my mind. I have the strongest possible sympathy with hon. Members below the Gangway opposite, and the strongest possible hostility politically to the Unionist group, who have proposed this Amendment. My sole motive in voting as I shall vote, and I hope some of my colleagues will join me, is to get free men freely elected to this House.
  Question put, "That the proposed words be there inserted."
  The House divided: Ayes. 164; Noes, 250.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

  GKEAT NOUTHRKN RAILWAY BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  Mr. HUDSONmoved, as an Amendment, to leave out the word "now," and to add at the end of the Question the words "upon this day six months."
  I move this Amendment not in any factious spirit, but because those who are seeking powers from this House are people who are amenable to the State, and who at least ought to set the best example of employers in the country in regard to Conciliation Boards and arbitration proceed-

  1301
  ings. This railway company come under the conciliation scheme as adopted in November, 1907. As a railway company they were parties to that scheme. A considerable number of men belonging to various grades of the service went through all the ordinary formalities in the way of making application for improved conditions of service. The matter was referred to the Sectional Board, then to the Central Conciliation Board, and eventually to arbitration before Lord MacDonnell in 1909. The company, on their side, were bound as parties to these proceedings, and they ought to have honourably carried the matter out. Indeed, they ought to be an example in this respect to the men who composed the other side of the board, but their position is this. They have claimed since the arbitration award, which took effect on 1st December, 1909, that they were entitled to go behind the representatives on the other side and use official influence to contract some men out of the award. It was quite natural that they were not going to contract them out of the award unless it was to their advantage. What was the real position? The goods workers at King's Cross, London, before the award had a ten-hour day, including a meal hour. A ten-hour day was awarded by the arbitrator, and he allowed pay for overtime at the rate of time and aquarter, and an advanced rate of payment for Sunday duty. As soon as the award took effect, the company placed those men on an eleven-hour day, including an hour for meals. The men naturally resented it. The company said, "That is the award," but it was not the award. They said to the men, "If you want to be out of it you may sign your right away, and we will relieve you of the award, and you can go back on these conditions." A very large number of men did so. I am quite prepared to give the company even the benefit of the statement that a vast majority, or nearly all, signed away their right to the award, and accepted these conditions. But these conditions were false—not true. Those who did not sign away their right had to be removed to another London station. The next step was that in the case of the carmen and draymen who serve the London markets. The same influences were brought to bear. What were they? The company applied a condition which was truly a bad misrepresentation of the award, and they must have known it. After the award the company extended the meal hour to such an extraordinary degree in the middle of the day that
  1302
  the men resented it. The company said, "Oh, well, that is the award, but if you want to be rid of it we can relieve you by signing it away." The company has admitted since that time that they were wrong, because they say now that the meal-time must be reasonable. That is their own admission. Well, is a meal-time of two hours and a-half a reasonable time in the case of men who only had one hour before? By extending it so inordinately the company thereby prevent the men from claiming any overtime at the rate of a time and a-quarter. The next step was with the Farringdon Street carmen. The same steps were taken in their case, and they were influenced to follow suit under the same misrepresentation of the application of the award. Eighty-five men were there contracted-out under these circumstances. The next step was with the passenger guards, and this is a most interesting feature. The passenger guards who worked from London to Doncaster or York before the award were allowed 1s. per day extra trip allowance. When their case came before the arbitrator they were requested to put in a schedule showing the wages of these men. They put in a return which included 1s. per day and represented the amount of total earnings. The arbitrator said distinctly that he was taking into account the additional shilling. So soon as the award came out the company stopped the 1s. per day to all these men, and said, "This is the arbitrator's award, but if you are prepared to sign away the right of working under the award then we will give the 1s. back again." Forty-four out of forty-six have signed on that condition, and got back the 1s. per day, and two have not yet signed. What does it mean? It means that the men who have signed out of this award go back to a normal twelve-hours' day. They lose extra payment for overtime, and they lose the advanced rate of payment, time and a quarter, for Sunday duty. The men who have not signed it have never been paid the 1s. per day since the award operated. They are working these men strictly to a 10-hour day without the payment of the shilling, which is dishonest in practice and a total misrepresentation of what was awarded. Even the ruling which has been given, on 19th December last, clearly admits the claim of the men that this shilling was not interfered with in any shape by the arbitrator, but was taken into account. The two men who have not contracted out of the award have lost about £10 during the last twelve months.

  1303
  The next step was with regard to the third-class passenger guards. In this case a petition was typed and issued from the stationmaster's office at King's Cross and sent to those men to sign. But these men showed immediately a considerable amount of restlessness. The pressure that was put upon them had not the desired effect. In consequence, the petition was quickly withdrawn, and those men are working under the award to-day. With regard to contracting out the system set up by the President of the Board of Trade in 1907 was a system of collective bargaining. We are prepared to admit that alterations might be made in an award after it has been given by an arbitrator, provided that it is done by agreement of both sides of the central conciliation board. But we do say that one side has no right to go behind the other and contract out of the award in any way whatever. The company say, "We claim the right to do this without consulting the other side of the board at any time we choose to do it." That is the position. I say to the right hon. Gentleman, the President of the Board of Trade, that so long as the conciliation scheme is going to last we are prepared to do all we can honestly to carry it out, but it must be honestly carried out on the other side also. A conciliation scheme is not an instrument merely to keep the men quiet and allow the employers' side to do as they choose, but it ought to be respected equally on both sides. The question of meal time has I know been much disputed since the award was issued, and I am prepared to admit that there was considerable room for argument and difference of opinion when we took nearly twelve months to bring the company's side round to that sweet reasonableness in which they would discuss the matter, and agree to let anything go back to the arbitrator for his ruling. But the company adopted, irrespective of the opinion of the other side, a system of time that was contrary to all precedent in the ordinary working. Without booking the man a day previous to take his meals at certain times, at many centres of the company's system they merely gave an order to a guard who was stopped by congestion of traffic: "You take your dinner." Fifteen or twenty minutes afterwards, when the congestion was somewhat relieved, they would say: "You resume your work, and take the other portion of your dinner somewhere else."
  1304
  On their own ruling, and in the evidence admitted to the arbitrator, they explain this in quite a different manner, and we are prepared to agree with what they have put before the arbitrator. But what we have got to say to them is: You do not carry that out. You do something contrary to it; and if you admit you have done wrong, and that you have deducted time which you never ought to have deducted, the only honest course now is to pay the men for that which you have deducted. That application has been made. A petition or memorial from various centres has been sent in to the management of the company. In one case that I know of—there might have been many more—an individual guard sent in an application for the payment of this money which had been wrongly deducted, and the following is the reply which he got from the District Superintendent:—
  "Re the above application for pay, all meal-time operated from the 10th August. 1910, and was acknowledged by your letter so-and-so, from which date nothing has been deducted, so please note and return papers."
  That is the answer to his application for the repayment. Surely a railway company who might, under many circumstances, have had honestly a wrong view as to what was the meaning of the award, and who have been applying it in a wrong way, when told what is the right way, should, at least, carry out their own decision. There is a period of eight months over which a great deal of those deductions occur which still require to be paid over to those men, and I say with all due deference, that if that money is of any importance to the company, it must be necessarily of very much more importance to the men.
  I very much desire to give one or two illustrative cases upon the question of their own ruling, which was submitted to the arbitrator in December of last year. One of the most important points that came before the arbitrator in 1909 was the question of working the seven days per week; or, in other words, seven times per week, for a week's pay. The arbitrator was desired to bring pressure on the company to alter the then existing state of things. He gave a considerable amount of elasticity to the company in working by refusing to give to the men a guaranteed day every time a man came out, but he said the ten-hours day was the standard he took, which must be calculated as a week of sixty hours. But he expected it would work pretty near the average standard of each day to be a day.

  1305
  He also thought that on the sixth turn of duty, if it went over into the Sunday, it should be considered as normal time, and that Sunday duty pure and simple should stand quite clear and distinct from the other work, and at an enhanced rate. Numerous cases have reached me during the last twelve months where men who were put on under the ordinary circumstances previous to the award for early Sunday morning duty at half-past twelve or nearly one, since the award have been booked on just a few minutes before twelve o'clock, and kept waiting about in order to avoid payment at the Sunday rate. I have a case which is a very technical one—that of a man who was booked on seven times in the week. He worked from Doncaster to London on the Friday, and he was booked on again on the Saturday night, with only eight hours and thirty-seven minutes interval of rest. Usually he was booked on the very train he worked back, after twelve o'clock, but in this case they booked him on fourteen minutes before twelve o'clock, in order to avoid payment on the Sunday rate.
  The curious feature about the whole matter is this: there is no clause under the award that gives the company the right to take away Sunday payment, because a man was on the seventh turn of duty, and not on the sixth. He must either have been eighteen hours off duty before he entered on the shift which goes into the Sunday, or eighteen hours after that turn of duty, and consequently he was entitled to the Sunday rate whichever way you look at it. But the company has not paid it. I want also to call attention to an important matter in reference to the carmen and draymen at Deansgate, Manchester. It was admitted a short time ago that these men were entitled to a ten hours' day, the guaranteed day; but the company have not admitted, or they have not yet been convinced, I suppose, that these men ought to be paid up for back time ranging over a year, and that they had been paying them and treating them on a wrong basis. I hope that they have now, however, decided to put the matter right. Another important case is that of the ticket collectors. These men had a shilling a day as expenses before the award. Since the award was issued this shilling has been taken off the men. For a considerable time the company have not paid it; then, when they were convinced they were wrong, they resumed payment of the
  1306
  shilling. But they have not paid the men for the back time when the shilling was kept off them. Take another case, just to show how they interpret what is a reasonable time for meals. A man was booked on from Doncaster, taking his turn at 10.35 in the morning with the train to London. He returned from London to York, arriving there at 6.3 p.m. He returned from York at 6.50 to Doncaster, arriving there at 7.30 p.m. He was on duty nine hours. They ordered him to go home and take an hour for meals. He had then to resume duty at 8.40 p.m. and work fifty-five minutes in order to finish his day, and then go home again. I ask where is the reason of fixing a meal hour at the last of a man's turn of duty? There is neither logic nor reason in it. There was no good purpose served by bringing this man out again from his home for only fifty-five minutes. I can only assume, and the man can only assume, that it is done in a purely vindictive spirit to give annoyance.
  Sir FREDERICK BANBURY: An arrangement was made that the Division was to be taken at a quarter-past nine. If the hon. Member takes up the whole of the time it will be impossible.
  Mr. BOOTH: May I point out that I ant no party to that arrangement.
  Mr. LANSBURY: And I am not.
  Sir F. BANBURY: That was the bargain.
  Mr. LANSBURY: We cannot help your bargain.
  Mr. HUDSON: I am sorry, I am sure, if I am saying too much for the hon. Baronet, but this is the opportunity, and the only opportunity I have of stating my case, and I really do need it for bringing this matter before the House and before the people, who I think will have an impartial mind as to what the railway company ought to do in honesty, when they are parties to a conciliation board and an arbitration scheme. I desire to mention a difficult case in another grade—that of the waggon examiners, greasers, and oilers. Here is a case again in which ten hours a day was awarded, with meal times to be inserted, and we naturally expected that the company would loyally carry that out. What do they do? They say to the man, Yes, take your hour for meal, but you must be relieved by the man who is a greaser, and you have got to bear the responsibility of any mistake he may make,

  1307
  and the time you are getting your food must be booked off, and will not be paid for. Is that a fair interpretation of the award?
  There is also a most important feature of this Bill, and that is what is going to happen under it with regard to Peterborough. We know from the provisions of the Bill that four lines are to be made through Peterborough, both through the station and over the river, to accelerate the working of the traffic. Presumably that is all right, and personally I welcome anything that would facilitate the working of the traffic and the safety of the line. I think, however, my hon. Friend and the Members even for Peterborough and that district, might look at another side of the question, and they will find, taking a broad view of what is in front, that Peterborough might very possibly become merely a wayside station, and not have the importance that it has now. The men of Peterborough have suffered considerably during the last four years from the removal of traffic. I ask what is going to happen by way of alteration if this Bill and its principles are carried out. It is quite true that the removal of traffic from that centre might have been due to certain causes, but some of the men have expressed the opinion that they think the removal of some of the traffic was through a debate that occurred in the house of one of the men in May, 1906, when certain long hours that were being worked at Peterborough were brought up, and which brought down a considerably amount of severity upon the devoted heads of those who were likely to be most dissatisfied with long hours. A number of trains were removed from Peterborough on to Colwick, being worked through to London afterwards. It has left Peterborough since then, so that the locomotive men have been on short time, and on very short time for a considerable time. For weeks and months they never worked more than five days per week, and it has also stagnated promotion. The hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury) says what has that got to do with it. I presume it has got something to do with the interests of Peterborough. The matter is one that on an occasion like this we must call attention to. Let me say I am heartily in favour of a thorough system of conciliation provided that the Boards are equally balanced on both sides, with honesty of purpose on the part of both to carry it out loyally. When a system of this kind is set
  1308
  up and this is a system of collective bargaining, neither side can go round behind the back of the other and do the things that this company have been doing. I sincerely trust that the House will mark its displeasure of the action of the company in this direction. I beg to move.
  Mr. WARDLE: I beg to second the Amendment. I realise that in doing so I have a somewhat difficult task. The House is, and perhaps usually wisely, anxious that railway Bills and private Bills of this character should go upstairs to be dealt with by Committee. We who are taking this action on this occasion realise that these Bills are of very great public importance, and that they affect large interests. Therefore, we have some diffidence at times in getting up to move their rejection, but it must be pointed out that these railway companies receive large powers from this House which enables them to carry on their business and to make the profits which they do make. When they come to this House with a new Bill, that is the only opportunity we have of criticising the powers which they have exercised in the past, and, therefore, we feel that this occasion cannot be allowed to go by. Further, there is not only the interest of the railway company and the large interests of the traders, but there are also the interests of large bodies of workmen who have a right to look to this House for protection in times like this. I think it cannot be denied that if there is any body of workmen in the country amongst whom contentment is an absolute necessity, if traffic is to be carried safely and if passengers are to be carried safely, it is amongst the railway workers of this country. We desire that they should be contented and there would not be unrest and discontent arising out of the settlement of November, 1907, if the Conciliation Board scheme which had been then set up had been carried out in the spirit in which we thought it would be. If that had occurred then, we feel we should not be standing up to-night to move the rejection of this Bill. This House has taken up a large portion of the time by discussing the case of Mrs. McCann and her two children, and of David Davies the shepherd—not the Ettrick shepherd, but still one single individual. We have had brought before us the case of the eviction of one man, James Gardner, a very serious case, no doubt, because of the principle involved. Therefore we feel that we have no right to apologise at all when we bring

  1309
  before this House the interests of a large body of men such as are employed on the Great Northern Railway.
  As the representatives of these men, we are desirous only to see that they get fair play, and, so far as we can assure it we shall do so. It is said that as the result of the policy of my hon. Friend and myself and one or two other representatives have been taking in recent years that railway companies are getting shy of bringing Private Bills before the House of Commons. If that be so, why are they shy? Do they fear the light? Do they fear that this House will treat them unfairly? For my part, I believe that this House is always willing to hear both sides of a question, and if railway companies can make out their case the House will give them their Bill. I am sometimes wondering whether it was because they wanted to dictate their own terms to the House of Commons that they were chary of bringing forward their Bill. It seems to me that that largely accounts for it, and if it be so the House of Commons ought to be jealous of its power and its honour, and ought always when these Private Bills are before us to look carefully into both their origin and their scope. As I said, we are not animated by any spirit of factious opposition either to the railway companies themselves or to their Bills. We recognise the importance of these Bills dealing, as they do, with large public works, and probably with the employment of a large number of men; but, as my hon. Friend has said, these are the only opportunities we have of bringing these matters before the House, and, therefore, we are obliged to take advantage of them. I understand that one of the provisions of this Bill is to be withdrawn. I am very glad to hear it. It was a provision giving power to run omnibuses. Had that provision stood in the Bill, and had the Bill gone unopposed, it would have shown the danger of allowing railways Bills to go to Committee without careful scrutiny.
  I will now come to the question immediately before the House. This railway company employs about 30,000 men, of whom about 11,000 came under the arbitration of Lord MacDonnell in December, 1909. It would be as well if the House had recalled to it the circumstances under which the conciliation scheme of November, 1907, was brought into being. No doubt it will be remembered that there was a large agitation throughout the country in regard to the conditions of rail-
  1310
  waymen; that there was a threatened strike, that negotiations took place between the Board of Trade, representatives of the men, and representatives of the company, and that between them a scheme was drawn up. I should like to draw the attention of the House to the fact that Lord Allerton, chairman of the Great Northern Railway Company, appended his signature to that scheme of conciliation; therefore, we feel that this company ought to be in honour bound by its terms. Our complaint is that they are not carrying out the scheme. What is that scheme? It is that the men should elect their own representatives on the one side of the Board, that the company should select their representatives on the other, that when the election was complete the men, if they had any grievances, should submit their case first to the management, then to the sectional Boards, finally to the Central Board, and from the Central Board to the Arbitrator—a pretty comprehensive and cumbersome scheme to begin with. It took two years for the men on the Great Northern Railway to get a decision of the Arbitrator. That is the way disputes are settled under this scheme. Our objection to the company's contracting out the men to whom reference has been made is based on the fact that the very men themselves whom they are now contracting out first of all took part in the election of their representatives or delegates, and we may say that, having done that, they ought to be bound by the result, and not allowed to contract out. What view does the company take of the matter? After long months of negotiation the general manager wrote to the chairman of the men's side of the Board in these terms:—
  "With regard to the right of the company to make agreements with their men, differing from the terms of the Award, I wrote yon on 27th July that the company could not concur in the suggestion you had made, that such agreements required the sanction of the Central Conciliation Board. Further, at our interview here on the 3rd instant, I pointed out that the agreement to which you refer had been made at the request of the men concerned, and that it was moreover a condition of the agreement of conciliation and arbitration arrived at at the Board of Trade, that there should be no interference whatever with the right of any company to deal directly with their men."
  9.0 P.M.
  There is no such right at all conferred upon the company in the conciliation scheme. I say that that is an absolute travesty of a conciliation scheme. The powers of the company are as strictly defined as the powers of the men, and the company are bound, by their own signature, to the scheme to abide by the award of the

  1311
  Arbitrator. There have been one or two disputes in addition to that on the Great Northern Railway. The Board of Trade were the authors of the scheme, and we hold that they are bound to see that it is carried into effect and loyally abode by on both sides. I want to ask the President of the Board of Trade to-night what his position is with regard to the matter. There was a somewhat similar dispute in regard to contracting out on the Great Eastern Railway. The men on that railway had an interview with the President of the Board of Trade, there was an inquiry into the position, and they obtained a ruling from the Board. That ruling, which was given in writing, says:—
  "The Board of Trade are asked for an interpretation of Clause 2 of the general principles of the scheme for conciliation and arbitration, in questions relating to hours and wages of labour, of certain classes of railway employés, which was signed by the Board of Trade on 6th November. 1907, and more especially—"
  Mr. DEPUTY - SPEAKER (Mr. Whitley): I think hon. Members must confine themselves in this discussion to something done or left undone by the Great Northern Railway Company, and not by the Board of Trade.
  Sir F. BANBURY: The hon. Member is now referring to the Great Eastern Railway Company.
  Mr. WARDLE: I only wanted to read the ruling of the Board of Trade regarding a very similar position which arose on another railway. I will simply state that the ruling in regard to that matter was that the company were not to be permitted to contract out of the Award which had been given, and I hold that if that is true in one case, it ought to be true in another. I want to deal for a moment with what I fancy will be put forward by the company. Their contention is, apparently, that they have a right to do as they like with men outside the Award, who desire to contract out, without any consent whatever of the Central Board. The scheme says exactly the opposite. What is the position? Let me take one illustration as an example. Here were the goods workers at King's Cross working a sixty-hour week. As a result of an arbitration, the Arbitrator said that they should have a sixty-hour week, plus time and a quarter for overtime, plus time and a quarter for Sunday duty. Prior to the award they only got ordinary payment for overtime. Does anybody want to make me believe, or any rational person believe, that when the arbitrator gives
  1312
  them time and a quarter, and enhanced Sunday pay, extra and above what they have had, that they want to contract out of the award on that account? Those were intended to be advantages to the conditions under which they have been working previously. But this is how it comes about that they sent a petition to the company asking to go back to the old terms. For their purposes, and no doubt from a genuine desire to mitigate the hardships of the men prior to the award, although their actual hours were supposed to be sixty per week the men working at nights were permitted to work only nine hours. In a ten-hour night they had one hour off for meals. That was a very sensible arrangement, and did great credit to the humanity of the Great Northern Railway management. I contend that night work ought always to be shorter than day work, as some compensation for having to work at night. But what did the company do? Immediately after seeing the effect of the award the company, instead of permitting these men to continue as they had been—one of the effects of the award was that they should not lengthen any hours—made these men work the full ten hours at night, which, with the hour for meals, spread the night over eleven hours. The men said: "Now that we have got six hours a week extra, the award is no good to us. It more than cancels the advantage we should have got for having time and a quarter for overtime and extra pay for Sunday duty." That is the real gist of the whole thing. That is the real reason why the men wanted to contract out. Such action, we say, on the part of the company is deserving of the greatest reprobation and censure. There is no wonder that the men want to contract out of the award when the company play fast and loose with the award and alter the terms of it. For my part I am as anxious as anybody that this dispute should be amicably settled. The company have the matter in their own hands. If they will only honestly, fairly, and squarely abide by the scheme which their own chairman signed, if they will strictly adhere to the letter of that scheme, which does not permit them to contract out or vary the award, then I for one will be quite ready to withdraw my opposition.
  I beg to second the Rejection.
  Sir FREDERICK BANBURY: The hon. Gentleman the Member for Leicester, who I understand is the Leader of hon. Gentlemen opposite, asked me if I would agree

  1313
  to this discussion coming to an end at 9.15, but hon. Gentlemen who have just spoken have taken up fifty-five minutes of that time.
  Mr. WARDLE: If the hon. Gentleman the Member for Leicester made that arrangement he has never appraised us of the fact, and we know nothing about it.
  Sir FREDERICK BANBURY: That is not my fault. But under the circumstances the time at my disposal is necessarily very short, because, at any rate, I am going to abide by the arrangement made. The whole question is a very simple one. This is a Bill to provide for widenings at different places on the system of the Company. It will provide for a widening at Peterborough, and it provides for a bridge over the railway for road traffic, there being at the present time a level crossing. The inhabitants of Peterborough have for years asked the railway company to do this. The cost of improvements at Peterborough alone amount to £351,000. They will not put a shilling into the pockets of the railway company. At the present moment all the railway company's fast trains to the North have to slow down to ten miles an hour going through Peterborough. If these improvements are carried out the trains will be able to run through Peterborough at the ordinary rate of speed. The inhabitants will be able to go across the new road without being stopped by a level crossing, and the £351,000 to be spent will mostly go in wages and work. Widenings at Doncaster will cost £130,000. Widenings in the West Biding and on the Grimsby line will cost £183,000, and the completion of the Enfield and Stevenage new line will cost £680.000, making a total of £1,500,000. The Enfield and Stevenage line is not a new line in the proper sense. The improvements there have been carried out in order to avoid the making of new tunnels between Welling and London. It was thought that the alternative route would better conduce to the safety and the comfort of the public than if we spent money upon making new tunnels and a newviaduct. So far as the company are concerned they are going to get nothing out of the Bill, except increased facilities for travelling. We come to the objections raised by the hon. Gentleman. These turn entirely upon the question of the award. The award was made by Lord MacDonnell. It was alleged that the award had been wrongly interpreted. Lord MacDonnell was asked what was his interpretation of
  1314
  the questions in debate. On every one of the points in dispute he sided with the company, and said that they were in the right and the men were in the wrong. With regard to what the hon. Gentleman called contracting out, the company has not used, nor will it use, any influence on the men to depart from the terms of the award. The company is prepared loyally to carry out the terms of the award. But if any man comes to the company and says that he would rather have other conditions, and if the company say: "Very well, on consideration we are prepared to meet you," all that the company contend is that they have a right to do so. A great deal was made of the Conciliation Board, There was nothing to go to the Conciliation Board about, because there was nothing in dispute. The two parties to the question, the men and the company, were agreed. The hon. Gentleman who moved the rejection of the Bill said that influence was brought to bear on the men after the award had been at work, and consequently the men, under this influence, signed a petition to ask the company to alter the terms. What are the facts? The award came into operation on 1st December, 1909. On 18th November, 1909—that is, before the award came into operation—the company received a letter from certain of the men saying that it was with regret that they heard of the result of the award of the Arbitration Board—that was not the fault of the company—so far as the signatories were concerned, checkers, porters, and others. They therefore asked that no change should take place in the present working arrangements. They had at all times been fully satisfied with their present system. On receiving this letter, of which I have all the signatures, although it cost the company more to comply with this letter than with the definite terms of the award, the company complied with the request made to them. As to the question of the first-class passenger guards which was raised; there are forty-one of them, I think, and of these thirty-eight came to us and asked us to go back to the old conditions. Three said they preferred to remain under the award. We said that thirty-eight men could go back if they liked to the old conditions, but the three who wished to remain under the award shall do so. What more can anybody want? We are also prepared to say if any man who has gone back to the old conditions comes to the company and says he is desirous of returning to the conditions under the award he shall be

  1315
  allowed to do so, having regard to the interpretation of the award. That, I venture to say, does not arise on the present occasion. The award was made by Lord MacDonnell, and he has given his own interpretation of his own award after due consideration. We only desire to be bound by the award and the interpretation, and the company say to the men: "If you are dissatisfied with Lord MacDonnell's award or the interpretation you can, if you choose, go to the High Courts and we will pay you your expenses." What more can we do? I will conclude my remarks now that it is a quarter-past nine by saying that the company never attempted to influence the men in the slightest degree, and I am prepared to give an undertaking that in the future the company will not bring any influence to bear upon the men. They are prepared to carry out the award loyally—there are 1,100 men—and in every case, except with regard to the three passenger guards, the whole of the men were unanimous. [An HON. MEMBER: "No, no."] I say it is so. The hon. Member says it is not, and it is a question for the House to decide who to believe. The company feel they cannot continue to carry out their undertaking if they are not to be allowed when three men come and ask them to do certain things to agree with their men to do these things which they consider it is in the interests of the company, and the men to do. I repeat the company do not desire, and have not done so, to put any pressure upon their men either to remain in or go out of the award, and further than that they cannot go.
  The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Buxton): The name of the President of the Board of Trade has been brought into the discussion on this matter, and therefore it is right that I should say a few words upon the subject. I understand that as regards the merits of the Bill there is no difference of opinion. It involves very large expenditure upon railway improvements, and upon one particular matter which interests those who represent Peterborough, namely, the level crossing at one end of the town. Therefore, I support the Bill heartily as regards its merits. The question arises whether the particular point raised by my hon. Friends is one which they are justified in raising and bringing before the House on the Second Reading stage. I am entirely in accord with what both my hon Friends stated that this opportunity is a perfectly
  1316
  fair and legitimate one for raising grievances in connection with railways. It is, indeed, in the present condition of Parliamentary time, the only opportunity afforded to hon. Members to ventilate their grievances, and both sides of the House will feel that in the remarks they made they were not only entirely within their rights, but their speeches were such as were suitable to the occasion. My hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Mr. Wardle) called the attention of the House to the railway scheme under which this matter has arisen at all. I need hardly say I am not going into the merits of the question raised by my hon. Friend with regard to the question of arbitration. It is outside my province; it was decided by the arbitrator and by the interpretation he gave, but the point has been raised that a certain part of the railway scheme of three years ago has not been carried out by the Great Northern Railway Company. However, I will say this in connection with the matter, that that agreement was come to in a very great emergency and under very great pressure. It was carried out in a moment of railway, and, indeed, of national danger, and to avert what I might call a national catastrophe. It was carried out almost at a few hours' notice, and it was quite clear, when it came into working order, that there were two omissions from that scheme. The first was if there was a difference in opinion in regard to the decision of the arbitrator there was no definite provision under which that difference of opinion should be referred back to the arbitrator for his interpretation. I am glad to know that the suggestions of the Board of Trade to the various companies where these disputes have occurred have been referred back to the arbitrator, and therefore that particular point does not now arise.
  The other point to which reference was made was that there is no rule in the agreement which specifically shows that the company has no right to contract out of the terms of the award. The question arose first in regard to the Great Eastern Railway. The representatives of the men on the Great Eastern Conciliation Board drew my attention to the matter, and they asked for a ruling upon that point of the scheme. They asked "should the simple decision of the Arbitrator be binding upon all parties." The question was, "Did it mean the railway company on the one hand, and the Conciliation Board on the other, or the railway company and the in-

  1317
  dividual men?" The Board heard both sides, both the railway company and the men, and the decision which I, as President of the Board of Trade, came to has already been referred to, and although I do not wish to trouble the House with the whole of my decision, I may say shortly it was this: That in my opinion the parties to the agreement were, on the one hand, the railway company, and on the other hand the representatives of the men sitting on the Central Conciliation Board; and the reason I gave for arriving at this conclusion was that the Board of Trade was influenced by the consideration that the whole idea of the scheme is based upon the principle of collective bargaining, and that not only are matters in dispute referred to the Central Board, but the award is issued to the two bodies. The Great Eastern accepted that interpretation given by the Board of Trade. Then came the question of the Great Northern. The same question arose in a different way in regard to that company. My attention was drawn to the matter by the representatives of the men. At that time the matter of the interpretation of the award by Lord MacDonnell was still in question, and it appeared this question might be solved by the interpretation he gave. That was not so. The interpretation was given and this question was not solved. I made a communication to the railway company upon the matter and discussed it fully with them, pointing out the view I held and still hold in reference to this matter, and asked them what action they proposed to take. I had communications with the representatives of the men in regard to it.
  The company take the attitude which the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London has just signified to the House. In their opinion this particular clause did not apply in the way which the Board of Trade and myself believed it did apply. As regards the case of the Great Northern Railway two other things were stated, and their position was different in this matter to that of the Great Eastern Railway. They had taken no part in the Great Eastern controversy and were not bound by that interpretation. That is perfectly true, because they had not an opportunity of stating their case, and no definite request has been made to the Board of Trade or the Master of the Rolls with reference to this particular matter. That is the position of the Board of Trade at the present moment. I do not wish to go into the merits of the case. My hon. Friend behind me said that the men had
  1318
  been induced to accept these terms or go back to the old terms, instead of the new, under some pressure. On the other hand, the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London says that no pressure was exercised. That is not for me to give an opinion upon. I do feel that while my hon. Friends—if they will allow me to say so—are perfectly entitled to raise this matter in the very grave way they have, it should be remembered that this agreement, made three or four years ago, is open to different interpretations in one or two respects, and until it is possible to lay down a definite interpretation which will be binding on both parties, it is not within the power of the Board of Trade to enforce it one way or another. I make an appeal to my hon. Friends with reference to this Bill, not to press their opposition in this one matter to a conclusion in the Division Lobby. I say this on tactical grounds. If they are successful in throwing out the Bill they will prevent various railway improvements being carried out involving a large expenditure of money, which would otherwise employ a large number of men; if, on the other hand, they are unsuccessful and the House rejects the Motion—and I for one shall feel bound to vote for the Second Reading—I think it will be held by the Great Northern Railway Company that the House of Commons has endorsed their action in regard to this matter. I do not want to be placed in either of these two dilemmas, because I think it is a matter which ought to go to the Committee. I do not want either to destroy the Bill or be held to have endorsed the action of the Great Northern Railway. For these reasons I appeal to my hon. Friends after having had an opportunity of raising the question with the general assent of the House as a matter to be considered in the future not to press their Motion to a Division.
  Mr. J. H. THOMAS: The President of the Board of Trade has told us that he feels himself to be in a difficult position, and he has made an appeal to those who are responsible for bringing this matter forward. May I point out to the right hon. Gentleman that he has put us in an equally difficult position. We appreciate the very sympathetic attitude which the right hon. Gentleman has adopted with regard to this matter, but may I point out that we are not dealing at the moment with the Board of Trade; we are not asking this House to express an opinion on any action which the Board of Trade has taken, but we are

  1319
  asking hon. Members to express an opinion upon the action of the Great Northern Railway Company. Therefore I submit that the House would be well advised to seriously consider, not only the merits of the conciliation scheme, but the deliberate attempt—and I say it with a full sense of responsibility—on the part of the Great Northern Railway Company to make this scheme abortive. What are the facts? Here is a scheme set up ostensibly to settle questions of dispute between a railway company and its employés. We have recognised from the commencement that not only is this scheme unfair in its application to the men, but it is undoubtedly the worst scheme of conciliation that any other employés have had to contend with. When the House remembers that in every conciliation scheme in operation today the employés have the right and privilege and opportunity to elect their own direct representative from their own trades union to argue their case and present it, when you recognise that that right is denied in this case, and the men have to rely upon the humble porter or platelayer stating the case of his fellows, surely with those disadvantages against the men the least we have a right to expect from even the Board of Trade and the railway company is that they will be fair in their interpretations of this agreement.
  The hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London has himself answered our case. Here is a scheme of conciliation supposed to be an amicable settlement of the differences between capital and labour. The hon. Baronet's interpretation of conciliation is to say to the humble platelayer and porter "go to the Law Courts." What is the use to talk about conciliation. What becomes of the value of the statement made from the other side of the House that the Great Northern Railway Company were prepared to deal honestly with their men, when their interpretation on honesty is "go to the Law Courts to redress your grievances." [An HON. MEMBER: "No."] I am well within the recollection of the House when I say that not only was that statement made this evening, but when in the last Parliament I put a question to the President of the Board of Trade, before he could answer it, the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London got up and said, "Is this House aware that we have offered to allow the men to go to the Law Courts"? When that spirit is in operation, when that spirit is actuating the railway company, is it any wonder
  1320
  that we feel, apart entirely from; the merits of the Bill, that this House should not give further powers to a body which has already prostituted the power which they possess. The President of the Board of Trade said that this scheme was hastily drawn up. That is perfectly true, and it is because it was hastily drawn up that we have recognised many of its imperfections. We have tolerated many of these things, and I ask the House this question. Here is the Great Northern Railway Company, who in their statement of the case which they have sent out to the members of this House, to influence them in their decision, say: "That they have only acted at the request of the employés." That statement was repeated this evening. Is there any hon. or right hon. Gentleman in this House who would assume for a moment that any man would petition his employer for a reduction in wages? Can anyone, speaking on behalf of the Great Northern Railway Company say that Lord MacDonnell gave a reduction for any single grade in the service? On the contrary, when he did not leave the conditions as they were, he gave an increase. Either the men's position was to remain as it was, or they were to have certain benefits as the result of the arbitration. Yet those responsible for this Bill say their own employés petitioned them to give them a reduction in wages.
  Sir F. BANBURY: On the contrary, I say it cost the company more.
  Mr. J. H. THOMAS: If that is the explanation, there is the proof that the Arbitrator gave an award which cost the company more.
  Sir F. BANBURY: I said nothing of the sort. I said the request of the men cost the company more than if they had remained as they were.
  Mr. J. H. THOMAS: If the Arbitrator did not give a reduction, how could it cost the company more to put the men back to their original position? The Arbitrator did not give a reduction.
  Sir F. BANBURY: We say he did.
  Mr. CHIOZZA MONEY: On the point of Order, is the hon. Baronet, as one of the Members for the City of London, in order in speaking in this House as a railway director and in speaking of his shareholders as "we,' as though he sat here for a railway company?
  The DEPUTY - CHAIRMAN (Mr. Whitley): That is not the point of Order.
  Mr. J. H. THOMAS: I want to remind the House, and I say it with a full sense of responsibility, that at one stage of this dispute the men were so dissatisfied and resented so keenly the manner in which the company treated them, that we had a wholesale request to our society to sanction a withdrawal of labour, and the answer was: "Do not prejudice the good principle of reconciliation." After considerable difficulty, we persuaded the men that conciliation, after all, was not to be damned by the action of one railway company, and we ask the House to say that a scheme which will bring peace to the railway service should not be rejected because one company is so autocratic as to interpret the position itself. The very basis of conciliation means two parties, but in this case the Great Northern Railway Company said "No, so far as we are concerned we absolutely refuse to allow you to meet to consider the position." That has been their action from the commencement. I regret we are compelled to bring this matter before the House and to discuss a question which does not entirely concern the merits of the Bill, but I do say that unless this House says that in this question of interpretation both employer and employee must act honourably and straight, you have no right to condemn the sectional strikes that take place from time to time in the country. It is because we want to stop these strikes and the men to recognise that there must be discipline from our standpoint as well as from the other standpoint that we ask the House to support our action by rejecting this Bill. We regret having to go against the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman, the President of the Board of Trade, but we believe we are acting in the interests of the men and the future of this scheme, more especially seeing that those defending this Bill have absolutely refused to recognise either equity, justice, or even common-sense in their decisions.
  Mr. BOOTH: I should like to bring the attention of the House back to the Bill itself. I am interested in the Bill as a private traveller. My business rather depends upon it, and it also affects my Constituency. I therefore claim the attention of the House while I speak from no sentimental point of view. The borough I have the honour to represent—which is quite as
  1322
  ancient as that represented by the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London—is keenly interested in this Bill. We are unfortunately placed with regard to through traffic, and I do appeal to the Great Northern Railway Company that at this time, when they are preparing by this Bill to reap an immense benefit from the opening up of a new coalfield in the Don-caster coal district, they should consider the ancient borough which lies immediately north. I therefore look upon this. Bill from a very matter of fact and business standpoint. The business firm with which I am connected puts much traffic on the line, and I am able to assure hon. Members of this House that, tied up as we are with the Great Northern Railway Company, we prefer to deal with that company, because they are considerate to us as traders and in all our requirements. It would be a great regret to me if by any vote on another issue the company were prevented from developing their line in this natural way. I appeal to hon., Members below the Gangway, as an employer of a considerable amount of labour. It is necessary that this company should be allowed to develop its own line, and I think they must see it is of the utmost importance that the company should be able to cope in an excellent business manner with the new developments in the Don-caster district. Only this last week business inconvenience has been caused, and' it has had its effect upon the wages of the working men we employ, owing to the company not having sufficient facilities a little to the south of Doncaster. I therefore make a joint appeal. I appeal to the representatives of the Great Northern Railway Company, whether it is not time to consider the historic borough of Pontefract in their deliberations. I am in the unfortunate position that if I stay to do my duty on a Friday until the House rises I cannot get home the same evening, and I appeal to them to consider my Constituency and to allow me to get home on a Friday night in order that in the country air I may recuperate after the awful strain of listening to the speeches in this House. I appeal to the Labour Members in particular, and I would like to draw their attention to an incident that occurred a little over two years ago to show them that the Great Northern Railway Company is not altogether unsympathetic to working men. We had, unfortunately, an accident—one of those unforeseen things which no one can explain—in connection with a blast

  1323
  furnace, and thereby some members of a trade union with which hon. Members below the Gangway are associated lost their lives, while many others had to be hurried away to Leeds Infirmary. The Great Northern Railway Company, with all speed, disorganised their ordinary traffic and placed special coaches at our disposal to convey the men to Leeds, and by that action some lives were saved. If that does not appeal to hon. Members, I will make another, speaking as a trader entirely dependent on the Great Northern line for the success of my business. They have made their protest in this House. I regret they have not had a more sympathetic reply. I say that quite candidly, but I do trust that the protest they have made will be conveyed to the Great Northern Board, and if they will pass this Bill, and their protest should prove of no effect, I will undertake, as one of the leading traders, to join with them in a deputation to the headquarters of the company.
  Mr. GEORGE GREENWOOD: I have listened to the Debate with great interest and some anxiety. Peterborough, the constituency which I have the honour to represent, has been referred to more than once, and, therefore, I think I ought to say a word or two on this question. The Corporation of Peterborough are extremely anxious that this Bill should go through. Anyone who knows the level crossing there must be aware that it is not only most terribly inconvenient, but that it is also a dangerous crossing, and the improvement which will be made if this Bill becomes law will be of inestimable value to the town. It is what we have been asking for for years, and it seems almost too good to be true that it has come within measurable distance of accomplishment. At the same time, there are a great many railway men in Peterborough. I look upon them as the backbone of my Constituency, and if it is proved to me that they are suffering from legitimate grievances, and that the company are unjustly treating them, and will not give ear to those grievances, if it proves also that the best way to put those grievances right will be to reject this Bill, I certainly would give my vote for its rejection. But I think it is impossible in this House properly to thrash out such a question as this. I have only received one letter from a constituent in regard to this Bill, and his objection to it was that Peter-
  1324
  borough might be made, in the words of the Mover of this Amendment, "a wayside station," because there would be so many through trains, and that would mean starvation for Peterborough men. With that particular objection I am not greatly impressed. I am assured that just as many trains will stop at Peterborough if the Bill is carried as before, and, in fact, there may be more as there will be an increased service of trains necessitated by the increased traffic. Another consideration which very much impresses me is that there is a kink in the line just as you go into Peterborough which necessitates trains slowing down to eight or ten miles per hour as they are coming into the station. That will be got rid of if the Bill is carried. There will be a new bridge over the river and trains will be able to go through at fifty miles per hour. I need scarcely say I give all possible weight to the grievances of the men, but I rather understand that this matter does not so much affect the locomotive men, because they are not under the award; it is a dispute rather with the carmen and carters. I would make an appeal to hon. Members who oppose this Bill. I would point out that if they take a division and the majority is against them, it may be suggested, as the President of the Board of Trade has said, that this House endorsed the action of the company. I am not interested in the company, but I do care for the employés. There is, however, a great overshadowing interest, and that is the interest of the general public, and when you come to examine this Bill under which the company are going to spend £1,500,000 sterling, and when also you consider how vitally important a matter to the country generally is railway improvement and extension, I do ask my hon. Friends below me whether, having made this protest, they think it worth while to divide the House upon it. I sincerely trust that they will not.
  Mr. HUDSON: I wish to say I am amenable to the very wise suggestion which has been offered by the President of the Board of Trade. I understand that the contracting out of which we complain is entirely provided against, and I would like to know if the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London is prepared to meet us as regards back payments.
  Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  The House divided: Ayes, 185; Noes, 133.

  Division No. 39.]

  AYES.

  [6.20 p.m.

  Acland-Hood, Rt. Hon. Sir Alex. F.

  Cator, John

  Greene, W. R.

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Cave, George

  Guinness, Hon. W. E.

  Anstruther Gray, Major William

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)

  Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

  Astor, Waldorf

  Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.

  Hambro, Angus Valdemar

  Bagot, Lieut.-Colonel J.

  Clive, Percy Archer

  Hamilton, Lord C J. (Kensington, S.)

  Baird, J. L.

  Clyde, J. Avon

  Harris, Henry Percy

  Baker, Sir R. L. (Dorset, N.)

  Cooper, Richard Ashmole

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  Baicarres, Lord

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Heimsley, Viscount

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)

  Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

  Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (City, Lond.)

  Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)

  Hickman, Col. T. E.

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Craig, Norman (Kent)

  Hill, Sir Clement L.

  Banner, John S. Harmood-

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Hillier, Dr. A. P.

  Baring, Capt. Hon. G. V.

  Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

  Hills, J. W.

  Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)

  Croft, H. P.

  Hope, Harry (Bute)

  Bathurst, Hon. A. B. (Glouc., E.)

  Dixon, C. H.

  Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)

  Bathurst, Charles (Wilton)

  Eyres-Monsell, B. M.

  Home, W. E. (Surrey, Guildford)

  Beck, Arthur Cecil

  Faile, B. G.

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Beckett, Hon. W. Gervase

  Fell, Arthur

  Hume-Williams, W. E.

  Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

  Fleming, Valentine

  Hunt, Rowland

  Bennett-Goldney, Francis

  Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

  Hunter, Sir C. R. (Bath)

  Bentinck, Lord H. Cavendish

  Forster, Henry William

  Jardine, Ernest (Somerset, E.)

  Boscawen, Sackville T. Griffith-

  Foster, Philip Staveley

  Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr

  Bridgeman, W. Clive

  Gastreil, Major W. H.

  Kerry, Earl of

  Bull, Sir William James

  Geider, Sir W. A.

  Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement

  Burn, Colonel C. R.

  Gibbs, G. A.

  Kirkwood, J. H. M.

  Butcher, J. G.

  Gilmour, Captain J.

  Lee, Arthur H.

  Byles, William Pollard

  Goldman, C. S.

  Lloyd, G. A.

  Carille, E. Hildred

  Golasmith, Frank

  Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.

  Gordon, J.

  Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.

  Cassel, Felix

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Long, Rt. Hon. Walter

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Grant, J. A.

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. A. (Hanover Sq.)

  Malcolm, Ian

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Terrell, G. (Wilts, N. W.)

  Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

  Rice, Hon. Walter F.

  Terrell, H. (Gloucester)

  Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecciesall)

  Thomson, W. Mitchell (Down, North)

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Robinson, Sydney

  Thynne, Lord A.

  Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honlton)

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Touche, George Alexander

  Mount, William Arthur

  Rolleston, Sir John

  Tullibardine, Marquess of

  Neville, Reginald J. N.

  Ronaldshay, Earl of

  Valentia, Viscount

  Newdegate, F. A.

  Royds, Edmund

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Newton, Harry Kottingham

  Rutherford, John (Lanes., Darwen)

  Watt, Henry A.

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

  St. Maur, Harold

  Weigall, Capt. A. G.

  Nield, Herbert

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Wheler, Granville C. H.

  Orde-Powiett, Hon. W. G. A.

  Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)

  White, Major G. D. (Lancs., Southport)

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  Sanders, Robert A.

  Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)

  Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

  Sanderson, Lancelot

  Willoughby, Major Hon. Claude

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Wood, Hon. E. F. L. (Ripon)

  Peel, Hon. W. R. W. (Taunton)

  Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

  Perkins, Walter F.

  Smith, Harold (Warrington)

  Worthington-Evans, L.

  Peto, Basil Edward

  Stanier, Beville

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-

  Pole-Carew, Sir R.

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Yate, Col. C. E.

  Pollock, Ernest Murray

  Staveley-Hill, Henry

  Younger, George

  Primrose, Hon. Neil James

  Steel-Maltland, A. D.

  Pryce-Jones, Col. E. (Montgom'y B'ghs)

  Stewart, Gershom

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Lonsdale and Mr. Moore.

  Quilter, William Eley C.

  Swift, Rigby

  Ratcliff, Major R. F.

  Talbot, Lord Edmund

  NOES

  Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

  Devlin, Joseph

  Johnson, W.

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N.)

  Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

  Addison, Dr. C.

  Dillon, John

  Jones, W. S. Glyn- (T'w'r H'mts, Stepney)

  Alden, Percy

  Doris, W.

  Jowett, F. W.

  Allen, Arthur Acland (Dumbartonshire)

  Duffy, William J.

  Joyce, Michael

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Keating, M.

  Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  Kellaway, Frederick George

  Atherley-Jones, Llewellyn A.

  Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

  Kilbride, Denis

  Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

  Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

  King, J. (Somerset, N.)

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury E.)

  Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of

  Lambert, George (Devon, S. Molton)

  Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

  Elverston, H.

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Barnes, G. N.

  Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

  Lansbury, George

  Barran, Rowland Hirst (Leeds, N.)

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

  Law, Hugh A

  Barry, Redmond John (Tyrone, N.)

  Essex, Richard Walter

  Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld., Cockerm'th)

  Barton, William

  Essiemont, George Birnie

  Leach, Charles

  Beale, W. P.

  Falconer, James

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Benn, W. W. (Tower Hamlets, St. Geo.)

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Bentham, G. J.

  Fenwick, Charles

  Logan, John William

  Bethell, Sir J. H.

  Ffrench, Peter

  Lundon, T.

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Field, William

  Lyeil, Charles Henry

  Boland, John Pius

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

  Lynch, A. A.

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Macdonaid, J. R. (Leicester)

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Furness, Stephen W.

  Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)

  Boyle, D. (Mayo, N.)

  Gill, A. H.

  Maciean, Donald

  Brace, William

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Brady, P. J.

  Goldstone, Frank

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Brigg, Sir John

  Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

  M'Callum, John M.

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

  Greig, Colonel J. W.

  N'Laren, Walter S. B. (Ches., Crewe)

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  M'Micking, Major Gilbert

  Burke, E. Haviland-

  Guest, Major Hon. C H. C. (Pembroke)

  Marshall, Arthur Harold

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Guiland, John W.

  Mason, David M. (Coventry)

  Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney C. (Poplar)

  Hackett, J.

  Mathias, Richard

  Cameron, Robert

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Meagher, Michael

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Chapple, Dr. W. A.

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Menzies, Sir Walter

  Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Molloy, M.

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.)

  Mond, Sir Alfred Moritz

  Clough, William

  Harwood, George

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Clynes, J. R.

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Montagu, Hon. E. S.

  Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Mooney, J. J.

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Morgan, George Hay

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Morrell, Philip

  Corbett, A. Cameron

  Hayward, Evan

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A

  Hazleton, Richard (Galway, N.)

  Munro, R.

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Murray, Captain Hon. A. C.

  Crawshay-Williams, Eliot

  Henderson, J. McD. (Aberdeen, W.)

  Neilson, F.

  Crumley, Patrick

  Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor

  Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster)

  Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy)

  Higham, John Sharp

  Nolan, Joseph

  Davies, E. William (Elfion)

  Hinds, John

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Davies, Timothy (Lines., Louth)

  Holt, Richard Durning

  O'Dowd, John

  Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan)

  Hudson, Walter

  Ogden, Fred

  Dawes, J. A.

  Hughes, S. L.

  O'Grady, James

  Delany, William

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.)

  Denman, Hon. R. D.

  Isaacs, Sir Rufus Daniel

  O'Malley, William

  1266

  1267

  O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  O'Shaughnessey, P. J.

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  O'Sullivan, Timothy

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  Wadsworth, J.

  Palmer, Godfrey Mark

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Walton, Sir Joseph

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Roche, John (Galway, E.)

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek)

  Rowlands, James

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

  Wardle, George J.

  Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)

  Samuel, J. (Stockton)

  Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

  Phillipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)

  Scanian, Thomas

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Scott, A. M'Callum (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

  Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Seely, Col. Rt. Hon. J. E. B.

  Webb, H.

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Sheehy, David

  White, Sir George (Norfolk)

  Pollard, Sir George H.

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

  Shortt, Edward

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Simon, Sir John Alisebrook

  Wiles, Thomas

  Price C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)

  Smith, H. B. (Northampton)

  Williams, P. (Middlesbrough)

  Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)

  Radford, G. H

  Snowden, P.

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  Raffan, Peter Wilson

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Wilson, J. W. (Worcestershire, N.)

  Rainy, A. Rolland

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

  Spicer, Sir Albert

  Winfrey, Richard

  Reddy, M.

  Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon (Glasgow)

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Summers, James Woolley

  Young, Samuel (Cavan, E.)

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Sutton, J. E.

  Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Kendall, Atheistan

  Tennant, Harold John

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Captain

  Richardson, Albion (Peckham)

  Thorne, William (West Ham)

  Donelan and Mr. Patrick O'Brien.

  Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

  Toulmin, George

  Original Question put, and agreed to.

  Division No. 40.]

  AYES.

  [9.53 p.m.

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Forster, Henry William

  Peel, Capt. R. F. (Woodbridge)

  Armitage, R.

  Foster, Philip Staveley

  Peel, Hon. W. R. W. (Taunton)

  Ashley, W. W.

  Gastrell, Major W. H.

  Perkins, Walter F.

  Astor, Waldorf

  Geider, Sir W. A.

  Peto, Basil Edward

  Baird, J. L.

  Gibbs, G. A.

  Pole-Carew, Sir R.

  Baker, Sir R. L. (Dorset, N.)

  Gilmour, Captain J.

  Pollock, Ernest Murray

  Balcarres, Lord

  Goldman, C. S.

  Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)

  Baldwin, Stanley

  Goldsmith, Frank

  Pryce-Jones, Col. E. (Montgom'y B'ghs)

  Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

  Gordon, J.

  Quilter, William Eley C.

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Grant, J. A.

  Rawson, Colonel R. H.

  Barran, Sir J. N. (Hawick)

  Greig, Col. J. W.

  Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)

  Barran, Rowland Hirst (Leeds, N.)

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)

  Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.)

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Bathurst, Hon. A. B. (Glouc., E.)

  Guliand, John William

  Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

  Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

  Haddock, George Bahr

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks

  Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)

  Robinson, Sydney

  Beale, W. P.

  Hambro, Angus Valdemar

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Beck, Arthur Cecil

  Hamilton, Lord C. J. (Kensington, S.)

  Rolleston, Sir John

  Beckett, Hon. W. Gervase

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Royds, Edmund

  Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

  Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

  Rutherford, John (Lanes-, Darwen)

  Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)

  Helmsley, Viscount

  Salter, Arthur Claveil

  Benn, W. W. (T. Hamlets, St. Geo.)

  Henderson, Major Harold (Berkshire)

  Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

  Bennett-Goldney, Francis

  Henderson, J. M'D. (Aberdeen, W.)

  Sanders, Robert A.

  Birrell, Rt Hon. Augustine

  Hickman, Col. T. E.

  Sanderson, Lancelot

  Boland, John Plus

  Hills, J. W.

  Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert

  Booth, Frederick Handel

  Hope, Harry (Bute)

  Shortt, Edward

  Boyle, W. L. (Norfolk, Mid)

  Hope, James Fitzaian (Sheffield)

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Boyton, J.

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)

  Bring, Sir John

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Starkey, John R.

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

  Isaacs, Sir Rufus Daniel

  Stewart, Gershom

  Bryce, J. Annan

  Kerry, Earl of

  Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

  Burn, Colonel C. R.

  Knight, Capt. E. A.

  Swift, Rigby

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Larmor, Sir J.

  Talbot, Lord E.

  Butcher, J. G.

  Lee, Arthur H.

  Terrell, G. (Wilts, N. W.)

  Buxton, Rt Hon. Sydney C. (Poplar)

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Terrell, H. (Gloucester)

  Byies, William Pollard

  Lewisham, Viscount

  Thynne, Lord A.

  Campion, W. R.

  Lloyd, G. A.

  Touche, George Alexander

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

  Toulmin, George

  Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

  Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood)

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

  Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.

  M'Callum, John M.

  Valentia, Viscount

  Chapple, Dr. William Allen

  McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Walker, Col. William Hall

  Clough, William

  Malcolm, Ian

  Walton, Sir Joseph

  Clyde, J. Avon

  Marks, G. Croydon

  Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

  Cooper, Richard Ashmole

  Mason, David M. (Coventry)

  Waring, Walter

  Corbett, A. Cameron

  Menzies, Sir Walter

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

  Weigall, Capt. A. G.

  Cowan, W. H.

  Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

  Wheler, Granville C. H.

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Mooney, J. J.

  Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.

  Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian

  Moore, William

  Willoughby, Major Hon. Claude

  Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Wilson, J. W. (Worcestershire, N.)

  Dewar, Sir J. A.

  Mount, William Arthur

  Wolmer, Viscount

  Dillon, John

  Munro, R.

  Wood, John (Stalybridge)

  Dixon, C. H.

  Murray, Captain Hon. A. C.

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon (Glasgow)

  Elibank, Rt. Hon. Master of

  Neville, Reginald J. N.

  Worthington-Evans, L.

  Emmott, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Newton, Harry Kottingham

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

  Nield, Herbert

  Yate, Col. C. E.

  Eyres-Monsell, B. M.

  Norton-Griffiths, J. (Wednesbury)

  Young, Samuel (Cavan, E.)

  Falconer, J.

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William

  Young, W. (Perthshire, E.)

  Faile, B. G.

  Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

  Younger, George

  Fell, Arthur

  Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

  Fleming, Valentine

  Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Mitchell-Thomson and Mr. Stanier.

  Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

  Crumley, Patrick

  Ffrench, Peter

  Allen, Arthur Acland (Dumbartonshire)

  Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy)

  Field, William

  Atherley-Jones, Llewellyn A.

  Davies, E. William (Elfion)

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

  Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

  Delany, William

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Barton, William

  Devlin, Joseph

  Furness, Stephen W.

  Bentham, G. J.

  Doris, W.

  Gill, A. H.

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Duffy, William J.

  Goddard, Sir Daniel Fora

  Boyle, D. (Mayo, N.)

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

  Goldstone, Frank

  Brace, William

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

  Brady, P. J.

  Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

  Hackett, J.

  Chancellor, H. G.

  Elverston, H.

  Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Esmonde, Dr John (Tipperary, N.)

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Clynes, J. R.

  Esslemont, George Birnie

  Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.)

  Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Harwood, George

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Fenwick, Charles

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Hayward, Evan

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Rutherford, Watson (L'pool, W. Derby)

  Hazleton, Richard (Galway, N.)

  Morrell, Philip

  St. Maur, Harold

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Neilson, Francis

  Samuel, J. (Stockton)

  Henry, Sir Charles S.

  Nolan, Joseph

  Scanian, Thomas

  Higham, John Sharp

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Scott, A. M'Callum (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

  Hinds, John

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Sheehy, David

  Hunt, Rowland

  O'Dowd, John

  Sherwell, Arthur James

  Johnson, W.

  O'Grady, James

  Smith, Albert (Lanes., Clitheroe)

  Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

  O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.)

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  Jones, W. S. Glyn- (T'w'r H'mts, Stepney)

  O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)

  Snowden, Philip

  Jowett, F. W.

  O'Malley, William

  Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)

  Joyce, Michael

  O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)

  Sutton, John E.

  Keating, M.

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Taylor, John W, (Durham)

  King, J. (Somerset, N.)

  O'Sullivan, Timothy

  Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

  Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

  Palmer, Godfrey Mark

  Wadsworth, J.

  Lansbury, George

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

  Leach, Charles

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek)

  Wardie, George J.

  Levy, Sir Maurice

  Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

  Watt, Henry A.

  Logan, John William

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Webb, H.

  Lundon, T.

  Ponsonby, Arthur A. W H.

  White, Sir George (Norfolk)

  Lynch, A. A.

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

  Wiles, Thomas

  MacGhee, Richard

  Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  Radford, G. H.

  Williams, P. (Middlesbrough)

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  Raffan, peter Wilson

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

  M'Laren, Walter S. B. (Ches., Crewe)

  Reddy, M.

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  M'Micking, Major Gilbert

  Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

  Mathias, Richard

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Meagher, Michael

  Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Hudson and Mr. J. H. Thomas.

  Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

  Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

  Molloy, M.

  Roche, John (Galway, E.)

  Bill read a second time, and committed.

SUPPLY.— [First Allotted Day.]
Considered in Committee.
[Mr. EMMOTT in the Chair.]
(IN THE COMMITTEE.)

CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS, 1911–12.
  VOTE ON ACCOUNT.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £19,351,000, be granted to His Majesty, on account, for or towards defraying the Charges for the following Civil Services and Revenue Departments for the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1912, namely:—

  CIVIL SERVICES.
  Class II.

  £

  Foreign Office

  20,000

  Class I.

  Royal Palaces

  20,000

  Osborne

  4,000

  Royal Parks and Pleasure Gardens

  40,000

  Houses of Parliament Buildings

  15,000

  Campbell-Bannerman Memorial

  —

  Miscellaneous Legal Buildings, Great Britain

  27,000

  Art and Science Buildings, Great Britain

  25,000

  Diplomatic and Consular Buildings

  25,000

  Revenue Buildings

  150,000

  Labour Exchange Buildings, Great Britain

  40,000

  Public Buildings, Great Britain

  200,000

  £

  Surveys of the United Kingdom

  50,000

  Harbours under the Board of Trade

  20,000

  Peterhead Harbour

  8,000

  Rates on Government Property

  150,000

  Public Works and Buildings, Ireland

  75,000

  Railways, Ireland

  10,000

  The Palace of Peace, The Hague

  —

  Class II.

  United Kingdom and England:—

  House of Lords Offices

  7,000

  House of Commons Offices

  13,000

  Treasury and Subordinate Departments

  26,000

  Home Office

  60,000

  Colonial Office

  16,000

  Privy Council Office

  3,000

  Board of Trade

  140,000

  Mercantile Marine Services

  30,000

  Bankruptcy Department of the Board of Trade

  3

  Board of Agriculture and Fisheries

  60,000

  Charity Commission

  9,000

  Government Chemist

  5,000

  Civil Service Commission

  12,000

  Exchequer and Audit Department

  18,000

  Friendly Societies Registry

  3,000

  Local Government Board

  75,000

  Lunacy Commission

  4,500

  Mint, including Coinage

  7

  National Debt Office

  4,200

  Public Record Office

  7,000

  Public Works Loan Commission

  5

  Registrar General's Office

  132,000

  United Kingdom—continued

  £

  Stationery and Printing

  235,000

  Woods, Forests, etc., Office of

  6,000

  Works and Public Buildings, Office of

  31,000

  Secret Service

  17,000

  Scotland:—

  Secretary for Scotland, Office of

  25,000

  Fishery Board

  7,000

  Lunacy Commission

  2,000

  Registrar General's Office

  28,000

  Local Government Board

  5,500

  Ireland:—

  Lord Lieutenant's Household

  1,500

  Chief Secretary's Offices and Subordinate Departments

  8,000

  Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction

  115,000

  Charitable Donations and Bequests Office

  600

  Local Government Board

  30,000

  Public Record Office

  2,000

  Public Works Office

  12,000

  Registrar General's Office

  20,000

  Valuation and Boundary Survey

  12,000

  Class III.

  United Kingdom and England:—

  Law Charges

  25,000

  Miscellaneous Legal Expenses

  19,000

  Supreme Court of Judicature

  86,000

  Land Registry

  10,000

  Public Trustee

  3

  County Courts

  2

  Police, England and Wales

  30,000

  Prisons, England and the Colonies

  220,000

  Reformatory and Industrial Schools, Great Britain

  65,000

  Broadmoor Criminal Lunatic Asylum

  22,000

  Scotland:—

  Law Charges and Courts of Law

  23,000

  Register House, Edinburgh

  11,000

  Crofters Commission

  1,500

  Prisons

  26,000

  Ireland:—

  Law Charges and Criminal Prosecutions

  18,000

  Supreme Court of Judicature and other Legal Departments

  30,000

  Land Commission

  232,000

  County Court Officers, etc.

  30,000

  Dublin Metropolitan Police

  36,000

  Royal Irish Constabulary

  500,000

  Prisons

  30,000

  Reformatory and Industrial Schools

  60,000

  Dundrum Criminal Lunatic Asylum

  2,000

  Class IV.

  £

  United Kingdom and England:—

  Board of Education

  3,750,000

  British Museum

  48,000

  National Gallery

  5,000

  National Portrait Gallery

  2,500

  Wallace Collection

  2,000

  Scientific Investigation, etc.

  20,000

  Universities and Colleges, Great Britain, and Intermediate Education, Wales

  70,000

  Scotland:—

  Public Education

  600,000

  National Galleries

  2,000

  Ireland:—

  Public Education

  600,000

  Endowed Schools Commissioners

  300

  National Gallery

  1,500

  Universities and Colleges, Ireland

  54,000

  Class V.

  Diplomatic and Consular Services

  170,000

  Colonial Services

  530,000

  Telegraph Subsidies and Pacific Cable

  16,000

  Cyprus (Grant in Aid)

  —

  Class VI.

  Superannuation and Retired Allowances

  240,000

  Miscellaneous Charitable and other Allowances

  800

  Hospitals and Charities, Ireland

  15,000

  Savings Banks and Friendly Societies Deficiencies

  —

  Old Age Pensions

  3,100,000

  Class VII.

  Temporary Commissions

  10,000

  Miscellaneous Expenses

  3,580

  Repayments to the Local Loans Fund

  —

  Ireland Development Grant

  100,000

  Government Hospitality

  2,500

  International Exhibitions

  25,000

  Development Fund

  —

  Coronation of His Majesty

  —

  Duke of Connaught (Visit to South Africa)

  —

  Repayments to the Civil Contingencies Fund

  —

  Expenses under the Unemployed Workmen Act, 1905

  —

  Expenses of the Funeral of His late Majesty

  —

  Total for Civil Services

  12,906,000

  REVENUE DEPARTMENTS.

  £

  Customs and Excise

  600,000

  Inland Revenue

  445,000

  Post Office

  5,400,000

  Total for Civil Services and Revenue Departments

  19,351,000

  [Note.—The sum taken represents a provision for about three months' expenditure.]
  Mr. BALFOUR: I do not think that the House has had full opportunities in the last year or so of obtaining any general statement on foreign policy from the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. I do not suppose it would be practicable, even if it were desirable, to ask the right hon. Gentleman (Sir Edward Grey) to survey the whole of that great and varied field, when we are in the position of beginning our Debate on the Vote on Account, only when the most important hours of the afternoon have already been expended on a very different subject. But there are two points upon which I should like to say a few words and ask a few questions, and which are in one respect connected. Such criticisms as I shall offer upon the Government are based upon what I consider to be the manner in which they are inclined to ignore the close relation which exists between policy, diplomacy, and Imperial interests. The first of those subjects relates to the Baghdad Railway. Two or three of my hon. Friends have a far intimate acquaintance with the country, knowing it by personal experience, as well as by study, and can give the House information which is beyond my power. But there are broad lines of policy upon which I can, perhaps, initiate the Debate. The Baghdad Railway had been a sort of preoccupation of Governments and Ministers before the right hon. Gentleman held his present place, and when we on these benches were in office, and I do not suppose that the right hon. Gentleman has had an easier time than we had. But I confess that at the present moment we cannot help looking forward with considerable anxiety to the developments which are in process of occurring in connection with European diplomacy and railway enterprise in Asia Minor, and in Mesopotamia. I myself was anxious at one time to see if some arrangement could not be arrived at by which equal rights could be given to the great commercial nations of the world for an equal share of
  1272
  the sacrifices made by them. If that had been practicable I think it would have been a good solution. It was not practicable. Whose fault that was it is not worth inquiring at this stage. At a time which counts in our Parliamentary history as ancient, as far back to the year 1904—perhaps even earlier—even at that stage, Germany and Turkey were, I understand, preparing to carry out, as they liked, the stages of that railway construction which are now in process of development. We are coming in sight—are we not—of further developments which do touch very nearly the immediate interests of this country; the commercial, political, and strategic interests, in the way those interests are not touched, while the railway is merely going through Asia Minor, or penetrating the defiles of the Caucasus. I want to ask the Government what course they intend to take especially with regard to the two possible, the two contemplated, developments of the railway branch line which is to join Baghdad and Khanikan, and the continuation of the line from Baghdad southward? The first of these is more commercial than strategical. It has more to do with the interests of traders in this country perhaps than the immediate balance of power either in the region which it traverses or in other connected regions. From that point of view surely its importance is as great and the menace to our trade is so serious that those interested in the trade cannot afford to ignore it. We used to have—we have still, I believe—but I have not investigated the figures recently—an overwhelming proportion of the trade which goes up the river, and then crosses by road to the frontier of Persia. That trade, I believe, is ten times as great as that of any other nation, if it is not ten times as great as all the other nations put together. What safeguard is that trade going to have when that branch or junction is made between Baghdad on the west and the frontier of Persia on the East? I remember that the right hon. Gentleman, in the early days of his office, was responsible for the Anglo-Russian Agreement. The late Lord Percy criticised that Agreement from the point of view of its effect on British commerce. He expressed his opinion that in the partition of zones of interest in Persia it would be found that the results were very inimical to the development of British commerce, would be inimical even to the commerce that we already possessed—let alone its development! I

  1273
  am afraid that Lord Percy's prophecies have proved only too true. I say nothing against the right hon. Gentleman as to the general aspect of that Agreement. I welcome now, as I have always welcomed, anything which can bring us into closer and more friendly relations with the Russian Empire. But the particular point of that Agreement which has to be borne in mind by the Committee at the present time is this: That while the Germans appear to have got concessions to construct that line from Baghdad to the Persian frontier, the Russians have got the concession of the line within the frontier of Persia. I do not think the Russians are actually making a line, but it lies with them to make that line, because they have within their sphere of influence the great railway terminus which must be in the hands of the Power which makes the railway; at all events it gives a great advantage to the Power that protects the railway. The result of these forces taken together is that along the route where we have ten times the commerce of the other nations of the world, and in substitution for the existing route for which we are responsible, and which our enterprise has largely created, you are going to have a line which is partly German and partly Russian. That is a matter which can—and probably does—cause considerable anxiety to the mind of the right hon. Gentleman, and I want to know, if I am right in my diagnosis of the disease and the forecast of the danger, what remedy he and his colleagues propose for that state of things? I understand that in answer to a question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire yesterday, the right hon. Gentleman practically assured him that equality of treatment to British and other goods was secured by an article in the Convention which he read to the House, and which, I may add, I think he read to the House in a somewhat truncated shape without introducing some very relevant qualifications which occurred in the Article, and which I think it would have been well if he had dealt with. But I leave it to my hon. Friend to develop that point. The point I want to develop is a different one. It is this. I do not believe that these equalities of rating are necessarily of more value than the most-favoured-nation clause. Both of them have the same weakness, namely, that you can grade goods and divide commodities up in such a way that rates which appear equal and are equal on the face of them, nevertheless press with quite an
  1274
  unequal severity upon the manufacturing interests of one of two countries. Alternative clauses on goods provide that one shall go at one rate and another at another. Then you may announce to the world that anybody who produces goods of quality A goes at such a rate, and anybody who produces goods of quality B—no matter what his nationality—goes at another rate, and that therefore everyone is on the same level. As a matter of fact the one country which produces article A and the other that produces article B may find that the trade rates, formally equal, press with quite an unequal severity upon one or other of the manufacturing countries. That, I believe, has actually happened in railway rates under the control of nations who do not share the view of the Government that politics and commerce should be kept in water-tight compartments, and not allowed to mix the one with the other! There are nations who take a different view of what can be done by an active policy; in consequence their manufacturers, in certain ases, are better served than their commercial or manufacturing rivals. That is the chief question which I wish to put to the right hon. Gentleman. With regard to the commercial aspect of the Baghdad Railway—especially that part of it which is to join the Persian frontier at Baghdad. The continuation of the railway to the Persian Gulf is also a commercial subject. We cannot in this House mention the commercial development without remembering that, quite apart from Britain's preponderance of commercial interests in that part of the world, we have strategic interests, and interests, which cannot be forgotten or ignored, connected with our prestige in India and Afghanistan, and all those adjacent countries. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman does not wish to forget or ignore them. Equally undoubtedly they are threatened—if we may judge the ordinary signs of the times—by certain projects of railway construction to a large extent far into regions which we have always regarded as under our protection and into territories which are not part of the Turkish Empire. I am sure the Government are prepared to give us every assurance with regard to Koweit and as to the policy of the Government. The right hon. Gentleman has made declarations in this House in previous years which, so far as I am concerned, seemed to me at the time to be perfectly satisfactory, and from which I do not believe he will recede.

  1275
  Nevertheless, I think he will regard our anxiety on this side of the House as not without its justification. He will feel that our interests, not merely our commercial interests, but our political, imperial, diplomatic, and national interests are being threatened by some schemers, and require the special and arduous care of the Foreign Office if they are to remain wholly unimpaired. These are the two main questions I wish to ask. How do the Government propose to deal with the extensions either towards Persia from Baghdad, towards Persia on the one side, and towards the Gulf on the other?
  I leave these two questions of the Baghdad Railway. I leave the homes of ancient and half-forgotten civilisations, and I turn to a very different sphere, the New World, and the great communities who are building up vast commercial empires in North America, and whose proceedings we are watching with anxiety—that is, we on this side are watching with anxiety—partly with a view to more strictly commercial considerations, but even more connected with those general views of empire on which perhaps we differ—certainly do differ in some respects from hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite. I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman exactly what instructions he sent to our Ambassador at Washington in connection with the reciprocity arrangement which is in negotiation between Canada and North America. I do not intend to say a word against Mr. Bryce; he is not only a personal friend of mine, but he is a very eminent and distinguished author; he was long an eminent and distinguished Member of this House, and he is now an eminent and distinguished Member of the Diplomatic Service, and, though I have not access to the same information or official documents, I believe it is a matter of common knowledge that Mr. Bryce's tact and popularity in the United States have greatly smoothed such slight friction as there may have been between the two great kindred communities with regard to a few outstanding questions, which I believe have been settled, or many of which have been settled, since the Government came into office, to the immense advantage of everybody concerned, and largely settled through the skill of Mr. Bryce, as well as the goodwill of the two great Governments concerned. Therefore, I make no charge against Mr. Bryce, on the contrary. I do not understand what the Government have been
  1276
  doing in this matter. It is the Government whom I want to criticise, and certainly not their Ambassador.
  Let me say at once, I think from the very nature of the case there is a certain difficulty in the position of our Ambassador at Washington, when one of our great sister States, which has an undoubted right to-separate financial negotiations, calls in his aid to carry out some reciprocity scheme, because it is quite clear, and it is not denied, that the interest of the home manufacturer may be different from the interest of the Canadian manufacturer. It is not only not denied, but it is admitted on all sides. It was admitted by the Prime Minister in this House, as well as by experts on the other side of the Atlantic. That is a position which perhaps is inherently and necessarily difficult. I think it is quite right the British Ambassador should help any self-governing Colony that calls upon him for his assistance, but it is equally clear that the British Ambassador is bound to do everything he can on such occasions to help the British manufacturer. It is a duty certainly not less obvious, than the other, to which I have referred. Here is a commercial negotiation going on, which directly affects the interests of British traders. Why have not British traders been informed upon this as they would have been informed, had it been an ordinary fiscal scheme proposed by some wholly independent foreign Power. Take Japan. Japan proposes a treaty by which British manufacturers believe, and I am afraid rightly believe, that they will greatly suffer, if it remains unmodified. Our diplomatic Representative at Tokiosends home at once full particulars. The Foreign Office and Board of Trade take care that these particulars shall be brought to the notice of all British manufacturers concerned. The British manufacturers consider the whole case; they come with deputations to the Foreign Office, and they inform the Foreign Office how they are likely to be pinched by this or that provision of the treaty, and the Foreign Office sets its whole machinery at at work to modify the terms of it. If that is done, when the negotiations are between Japan and England, why was it not equally done when negotiations were going on in which the British manufacturer is also interested, although no doubt it is true that these negotiations were more or less of an exceptional character and were taking place between one of our great Dominions and the United States of

  1277
  America. If this reciprocity arrangement between Canada and the United States goes through, about which it is impossible to prophesy, if it goes through, we shall have the extraordinary spectacle of differentiation by a British Dominion against the British manufacturer.
  The right hon. Gentleman said, all this is a very small matter. I think he said that, in the early days of the Debate on the Address. I am not sure his figures were right. I rather think they were wrong, but that is not really the point. The point is, that British commercial interests are involved, that they are affected, that they are threatened, and so far as I know, nothing has been done under the instructions of the Government by our Ambassador at Washington to keep British manufacture in the same condition as fully acquainted with all the facts, as he would have been had it been a case of Roumania or Japan, or any other foreign Power whose fiscal arrangements were affecting the interest of the British manufacturer. I think the whole of that matter is really rather serious from the point of view of our diplomacy, and I am afraid I am one of those who look forward to even greater difficulties in the diplomatic future if these reciprocal arrangements are to go on. I do not wish to dwell at this moment too much upon the Imperial side of the question. I have spoken of it already this Session, and I shall no doubt speak of it again, and I do not wish to dwell upon it at the present time.
  But observe what must inevitably happen, as it seems to me, if a reciprocal arrangement is made with the United States of America which produces, or tends to produce, Free Trade along the lines of route along that border between Canada and America, while leaving high tariffs on the American coast, and other tariffs less high, but still high, upon the Canadian coast. You must have as relations between Canada and the United States develop, as the policy which Canada is pursuing, and has been pursuing for years past, of promoting an East and West, as against a North and South flow of commerce, as the policy develops, you will find the utmost difficulty in maintaining, or at any rate North America will find the utmost difficulty in maintaining different rates of duty along the United States coastline as compared with the Canadian coastline. Goods are brought in at low duty or perhaps no duty at all, but at low duty we will say, over the Canadian sea-
  1278
  board; they are kept out by very high duties upon the American seaboard, and the temptation to smuggle across the frontier of the two countries when they have been landed is evidently great in itself, and will be a source of great embarrassment to the Governments concerned, and it seems to me perfectly obvious, as time goes on, that the relations between the American commerce and the Canadian commerce will become, under this system, so inextricably entwined that the larger partner in this new commercial confederation will have every interest in inducing the smaller partner to frame his tariff in accordance with the United States interest rather than in accordance with the Canadian or British interest, and that tendency will perhaps be found ultimately impossible to resist. Even now, do observe what diplomatic difficulty you may get into over this reciprocity arrangement.
  The Americans and Canadians both have a most-favoured-nation clause. It affects the whole Empire, because Canada is part of our Empire. The Americans have their own most-favoured-nation clause, but they mean different things, and the fact that they mean different things has a very pressing bearing upon this reciprocity arrangement. The Americans adhere to the old British view, to what used to be our view fifty years ago, of what most-favoured-nation treatment meant. They say, they may make what arrangements they like with any other country, and that no other country is to benefit from this arrangement unless it can offer benefits to the United States. That is the American interpretation of the doctrine. The Canadian interpretation of the doctrine is ours, and must be ours. That is the present view of the Foreign Office, and the result is that Canada gives to the United States some advantage, and that advantage is shared by a large number of other Powers. When the United States gives to Canada an advantage that advantage is shared with nobody else, unless the United States say, this Power or that have given us advantages which makes it worth while to extend to them the advantages we have already given to Canada. In other words, the Canadian most-favoured- nation clause works automatically; the American most-favoured-nation clause works according to the view of the American Foreign Office or authorities who have to settle tariff relations with other countries.
  I am not at all sure that the American system has not much to be said for it.

  1279
  The British system, I believe, is largely Mr. Cobden's system, and he was under the very natural impression that if you once began negotiations like those which we had with France in 1860, and if you worked your most-favoured-nation clause upon the system which we have adopted, and other nations following our example have adopted, you gradually would spread over a whole world a network of arrangements that would be strongly conducive to Free Trade. I do not think it has really had that result. The result is so difficult and mixed that I would not venture to pronounce a final opinion upon it, but of this I am certain, that our interpretation followed as it has been by other nations, is the immediate cause of the extraordinary complication of all continental and other tariffs. They have, as I explained in the earlier part of my speech, to cut up their categories into such small and minute fractions that their tables of duties present an almost appaling appearance to those who attempt to study them. I believe that is not the less due to the fact that they have tariffs and try to make them of such a character as to elude the meshes of the most-favoured-nation clause.
  7.0 P.M.
  What I want to point out to the Government is, that if Canada and America are going to have these very close and increasingly close commercial arrangements, this dual interpretation of the most-favoured-nation clause must end in very great embarrassment indeed. I do not see how it can go on, and yet I do not see how it can be altered. I do not ask the right hon. Gentleman to provide any solution for difficulties which have not met us yet in a practical sense, but I do think the right hon. Gentleman and the Government would do well to consider how greatly we may be embarrassed in the future concerning a part of the Empire already of enormous importance—of growing importance—destined to increase by leaps and bounds, and bound, as I hope and believe, by ties of affection and loyalty which no commercial arrangements can destroy, in spite of what some rather reckless American statesmen have been pleased to say—I want to point out the difficulty that will occur when that community, bound to us only by those ties of loyalty and those feelings of unity has all its commercial interests directed towards another State, however friendly that other
  1280
  State may be to us, however near it may be in kinship, however close it may be in its common ideals and laws. I am afraid that if this policy goes on—and you have done a great deal to encourage it—it cannot but produce very embarrassing diplomatic problems connected with the ever-growing network of commercial treaties by which modern civilised commercial nations are connected—embarassments which I at all events, cannot look at with equanimity—and which I think even the Prime Minister, who is so sanguine about the whole of this new departure, must look at with some disquiet. There is only one bright spot in this picture, and that is the declaration which—though I only speak from the telegraphic reports—I understand that the Canadian Prime Minister has made in favour of Preference. My right hon. Friend the Member for East Worcestershire (Mr. Austen Chamberlain) was taken to task rather severely by the Prime Minister at the beginning of the Session because he quoted Sir Wilfrid Laurier on the authority of a newspaper report. We have not the Canadian Hansard here, which I understand, has to be consulted before a Canadian speech is quoted. I can only give my information for what it is worth, but I have no doubt that "The Times" report is accurate and that the emphatic declaration made by Sir Wilfrid Laurier that he desired to see the policy of Preference carried through was accurate, and, for my part, I most gladly and heartily welcome it.
  I note with the deepest satisfaction that Sir Wilfrid Laurier is not content with a mere declaration in the Canadian Parliament. He has announced his intention of bringing forward the question again before the Colonial Conference. We hail that declaration with the utmost satisfaction, though I fail to understand how it is consistent with the statement of the Prime Minister that three weeks ago—or whatever it was—he was attending the obsequies of preference. I think he went on to explain in his peroration that not merely were we celebrating the obsequies of preference, but it was a great, and now exposed, fiscal imposture. That "imposture" is going to be brought forward again by the Prime Minister of the greatest of our Dominions, and he will be supported, I doubt not, by the Prime Ministers of the other great self-governing Dominions. I most earnestly hope that the temper in which the Government are going to receive those overtures will neither resemble the

  1281
  temper in which they received them in 1907 nor will accord with the amazing declaration which the right hon. Gentleman made in the first blush of this reciprocity proposal, when we brought this subject before the House earlier in the Session. If the Canadian Prime Minister is correctly reported—and I doubt not he is—it is clear that the question is not dead in Canada, and I can assure the right hon. Gentleman it is not dead here.
  The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir Edward Grey): The right hon. Gentleman, at the beginning of his speech, remarked, very naturally, that the hour was somewhat late, and that he would not ask from me a general statement upon foreign policy. That is to say, as I understood him to mean, that at this late hour the subject of foreign policy by itself was so large that I could not be expected to travel over the whole field. He also intimated that there were other hon. Members on his side of the House who desired to speak. Well, Sir, I feel it so strongly that I shall compress my remarks as shortly as I can in order that there may be as much time as possible for others who follow me. I thought it a little remarkable after the right hon. Gentleman began by saying that the hour was somewhat late that he should, for the last five minutes, have induced me to forget that it was the Foreign Office Vote at all under consideration. I therefore propose to bring the Committee back to the points on which the right hon. Gentleman specially asked for information. I will confine myself, as far as possible, to answering him on the particular points which he raised. He dealt first of all with the Baghdad Railway. I have no complaint to make whatever of his introducing that subject into the Debate, nor have I any complaint to make of the tone or substance of the remarks which he made about it, but I would observe generally with regard to what he said about the Baghdad Railway, that it is always possible and easy to fix on certain parts of the world which are not under our control, which are not likely to be under our control, and in which events may not be altogether moving according to our minds. That is always the case in some parts of the world, and that always offers a field for comment and observation. I have no complaint to make of the right hon. Gentleman's comment with regard to the importance of our trade interests in
  1282
  that part of the world, but where, I think, his speech stopped short was at the point where he might have shown what lever we had, what position we occupy, what powers we have by which we should be enabled to control the course of events in that part of the world. He has admitted himself that the Baghdad Railway question was one with which he had been familiar when he was in office. He said that an opportunity arose at that time of taking part in the Baghdad Railway or coming to some terms about it, an opportunity which he regretted to say had not resulted in its being found practicable to secure equal rights with regard to that railway. That happened while he was in office. When that opportunity had passed, surely it was not easy for us to create the opportunity again or to take advantage of it. I should like the right hon. Gentleman to be quite clear about this. I am not reflecting upon anything that he did while he was in office. I do not say it was an opportunity of which more could be made than his Government made of it. I only want to emphasise this fact, the Baghdad Railway concession having come into existence, I think while they were in office—they did not find it practicable, though they were quite as conscious of British interests as they are now—to arrange British participation in the enterprise. So it was not likely, when the Baghdad Railway had made some further progress, that we should find it easier than they did, and in all the comment of the right hon. Gentleman there was nothing to show that we had ever been in a more favourable position than his own Government was for arranging terms with regard to British interests in the Baghdad Railway. On the contrary, if there is any difference, it is that the undertaking being more solidly established when we came into office, it was less likely that we should be able to get as favourable terms as might have been obtained in earlier days.
  The time to oppose the Baghdad Railway, if it it was to be opposed in British interests was before the concession was granted. The concession once granted was a German concession in Turkish territory, and that concession remains to-day as we found it when we first came into office. The concession has not been extended, and it is within the rights of the German Concessionaires and of the Turkish Government to carry out the terms of that concession as they please in Turkish territory. Now, the right hon. Gentleman says, "Yes, but there is a branch going to be

  1283
  made from Baghdad to Khanikin, and that will affect an important artery of British trade." The concession for that branch was contained in the original concession of the Baghdad Railway, and that remains as it was. Then said the right hon. Gentleman, "Yes, but now when you go beyond Turkish territory there is going to be a branch made from Khanikin to Teheran, and that is not going to be under British control." Well, whether there had been the Anglo-Russian Agreement or not, anyone who looks at the map and sees that the branch from Khanikin to Teheran is going to proceed not south, but north into Persian territory, will know that under no conditions in recent years would it have been possible for us to have secured a concession for railways in the north of Persia.
  If we are to have a concession for railways it must be in the south of Persia, and that must always be so. The north of Persia is out of our reach. If we had had a concession for railways there we could not have protected it—we could not have secured the concession, and we could not have protected it if we had secured it. For years passed, before the Anglo-Russian Agreement was made, it has been known to everybody that, if we were to protect British commercial interests, they must be protected in the south and not in the north of Persia. That remains unaffected by anything we have done since we came into office.
  The right hon. Gentleman says it is important British trade should be protected. As far as it can be protected by guaranteeing equal rights for trade on these railways it will be protected, but more than that we cannot do with regard to these railways. The right hon. Gentleman said that those guarantees of equal right might be so worked as to be in practice unfavourable to British trade. Your only guarantee against that is to make other routes of your own for British trade. You cannot possibly take away the concession which the Germans have got from the Turks, and which is in Turkish territory. You cannot stop them making the railway. You could never under any circumstaances have got a concession or carried out a concession for a railway in the north of Persia itself. If the guarantees you can get, and which I think we have got, and which, indeed, we are entitled to demand—that there should not be preferential rates and so forth—are not sufficient, you have no option ex-
  1284
  cept to get other concessions which will be under your own control. The right hon. Gentleman did not go so far as to suggest that. He commented upon the weakness of our position with regard to these particular railways. He made no suggestion whatever to show what we could do. He suggested no lever that we could use and no means whatever by which we could bring pressure to bear to secure British trade interests with regard to these railways, railways in the north of Persia and in Turkish territory, for which a concession has already been granted. That is not very helpful.
  We are not quite so helpless in the matter as might be gathered from the speech the right hon. Gentleman has made. These railways in Turkish territory are going to cost money. The Turkish Government two years ago received consent for a limited period for a 3 per cent. increase of the Customs Duty. The Turkish Government have since applied for a 4 per cent. increase of the Customs Duty. That cannot be levied without our consent. I wish to see the new regime in Turkey strengthened. I wash to see them supplied with resources which will enable them to establish strong and just Government in all parts of the Turkish Empire. I am aware money is needed for those purposes, and I would willingly ask British trade to make a sacrifice, so far as it is a sacrifice to British trade, for those purposes, but, if the money is to be used to promote railways which may be a source of doubtful advantage to British trade, and still more if the money is to be used to make railways which will take the place of means of communication which have been in the hands so far of British Concessionaires, then I say it will be impossible for us to agree to that 4 per cent. increase of the Customs Duty until we are satisfied that British trade interests will be satisfactorily guarded. I would like the House to be quite clear on this point. The Baghdad Railway is a German concession in Turkish territory, and as such we have no right or title to object to the German Concessionaires and the Turks carrying it out in accordance with the concession in Turkish territory; but, when we are asked to give our consent to provide further sources of revenue to the Turkish Government, then we do come in, and come in naturally, because they are asking us to agree to certain increased burdens, and we have a right to demand that before we agree to those in-

  1285
  creased burdens the Turkish Government should make it clear that the revenue is going to be applied to the purposes to which we wish to see it applied, namely, the good Government and strengthening of the Turkish Empire, and is not going to be used to construct railways which for strategical or other reasons the Turkish Government may be very anxious to have, but which may incidentally prejudice the interests of British trade. That is our position with regard to the Baghdad Railway.
  The right hon. Gentleman asked a further question as to Koweit and the Turkish Government. That is quite a different question to the mere question of the Baghdad Railway. I have been careful to emphasise that the Baghdad Railway is a German concession in Turkish territory, but, if the Baghdad Railway is to proceed further than Turkish territory, then of course our diplomatic position in the matter becomes very different from what it is so long as it remains purely in Turkish territory. We are not anxious to disturb the status quo in the Persian Gulf. To a great extent that status quo has been built up by us in previous generations. We have practically opened the Persian Gulf to trade and kept it open. That has been a matter of historical knowledge for years past. We are not anxious to have a forward policy in the Persian Gulf to acquire new territory, or to disturb the status quo, but if the status quo is going to be disturbed by others then we must undoubtedly use our resources to maintain the position we have in the Persian Gulf. Part of the status quo is that we have entered into treaty obligations with the Sheikh of Koweit, and in any negotiations which there may be or in any changes which may take place it is an obligation upon us to see our treaty obligations towards the Sheikh of Koweit in maintaining his position are fulfilled. That is what I would say on the two points the right hon. Gentleman has raised, and I hope, at any rate, that what I have said has made clear, not only what the limits of our position are, not only what the limits of our action must be, but also the limits within which we think we can do something to maintain British trade interests, and to maintain what hitherto has been regarded as the status quo in the Persian Gulf.
  From that I would pass to a very different question which the right hon. Gentleman raised—that of the Canadian reciprocity negotiations. He asked what instructions we had sent or what instruc-
  1286
  tions we intended to send to Mr. Bryce at Washington. We have not so far sent instructions, and we do not propose to send any instructions to Mr. Bryce, except to approve most cordially and entirely of everything he has done. Here again the right hon. Gentleman commented upon certain disadvantages which he thought might arise from the course of things which have taken place between Canada and the United States. I did not gather what conclusions he himself meant to draw from his own comments as to what diplomatic action we ought to have taken—I am speaking strictly with reference to the Foreign Office—through our Ambassador at Washington in the course of these negotiations. Canada was acting within her statutory rights in dealing with her own tariff.
  Mr. BALFOUR: I thought more information ought to have been given through the diplomatic channels to our manufacturers as to what the effect of these negotiations was, but they knew nothing about them.
  Sir E. GREY: I will say exactly what Mr. Bryce did. The Canadian Ministers—Mr. Fielding and Mr. Paterson—arrived at Washington on 6th January, and they were introduced by Mr. Bryce to the President on the following day. That was the action Mr. Bryce took when they arrived. It was an action which obviously Mr. Bryce was right in taking. Canadian Ministers went to negotiate on something which was entirely within their own competence, and Mr. Bryce, as the British Ambassador, introduced them, as British subjects. [MR. BALFOUR: "Hear, hear."] In that, at any rate, the right hon. Gentleman agrees with what Mr. Bryce did. What did he do subsequently? Mr. Bryce kept closely in touch with the Canadian Ministers during the course of the negotiations. He did not take part actually in the negotiations as between the Canadian Ministers and the United States Ministers, but he kept in close touch with the Canadian Ministers, who kept him informed as far as it was possible in negotiations of such complexity of detail of what passed. Mr. Bryce, in his discussion with them, says:—
  "No opportunity was lost in the course of the negotiations of reminding the Canadian Ministers of the regard which it was right and fitting they should have to Imperial interests, while also it was their obvious duty to do their best for Canadian interests, and such reminders found on every occasion a frank and cordial response."
  I think Mr. Bryce was fulfilling in that the duties of a British Ambassador. We have

  1287
  to bear in mind there were both Canadian and British interests. He kept in close touch with the Canadian Ministers, bearing in mind that they had to have regard to Canadian interests, but from time to time and in the course of negotiations practically saying, "British trade may be affected in such and such a way by what you are doing; are you sure in helping Canadian interests you are not doing an injury to British interests?" And the Canadian Ministers invariably received what he said in a sympathetic spirit. That practically is what Mr. Bryce's action was, and what we propose to approve.
  Mr. BALFOUR: The right hon. Gentleman has not answered my question. I think I said I agreed that of course assistance should be offered to Canadian Ministers by the British Ambassador, but I said the British Ambassador ought to have kept the Home Government, and the Home Government ought to have kept the Home manufacturers, informed of all the details of the arrangements—at any rate, at the earliest possible moment—by which their interests might be affected.
  Sir E. GREY: I ought to have said—it was my intention—that I cordially recognise the way in which the right hon. Gentleman spoke of Mr. Bryce. He made no attack or criticism on him. I should like to cordially recognise that, all the more so because, although I think so far as his own bench is concerned either here or elsewhere, that has been the tone adopted in regard to Mr. Bryce, there have been attacks made on Mr. Bryce. I therefore recognise cordially that he himself makes no attack on Mr. Bryce. It was the desire, I think, by both parties to the negotiations—the Canadian Ministers and the United States Ministers—that the negotiations should be kept secret while they were taking place. It would have been impossible while they were taking place, even if Mr. Bryce had telegraphed the whole of the details, for us to have consulted British manufacturers; but the Embassy did all through make an examination as far as it could—the time was exceeding short—of what was likely to be the principal effect upon British trade, an examination not for the purpose of delaying the negotiations, but for the purpose of pointing out to the Canadians from time to time what were the points which might be regarded by them. The right hon. Gentleman says we did not consult British manufacturers. At what
  1288
  stage were we to consult them? We could not do it while the negotiations were going on, and I understand that the Board of Trade, since the details have been received, has been engaged in examining them from the point of view of British trade. The Embassy did the utmost in its power in that direction while the negotiations were taking place. There was only one other things we could have done, and that I would not have done under any circumstances. On this matter Canada was acting entirely within her own statutory rights. We could have forbidden her to conclude an arrangement with the United States, which was entirely in her statutory rights, until we had had the whole thing over here, and until British manufacturers had considered it; but that was a thing we certainly would not have done. Yet, unless we had done it, I do not see what more possibly we could have done. The commercial experts at the Embassy were in touch with the Canadian Ministers and kept their eye on British trade interests, commenting on them with the Ministers as the negotiations were taking place, and these comments were received very sympathetically. I do not see what more could have been done. Unless the conclusion which the right hon. Gentleman would have us draw from his criticism is that we ought to have done our best to prohibit the negotiations being concluded until we had made them public and considered them over here, I do not see what inference he wishes us to draw from the criticism he made on the action of the Government on this point.
  The right hon. Gentleman said he foresaw difficulties—difficulties under the dual interpretation of the most-favoured-nation clause, the interpretation by the United States of that clause being different to the wider interpretation placed upon it by us. But there had been difficulties long before the Canadian reciprocity negotiations had taken place about the interpretation of that clause. There may be difficulties again, and I do not wish to underrate the fact that the interpretation of that clause may give rise to diplomatic difficulties. But the Canadian reciprocity negotiations will not be the origin of those difficulties. We have had these difficulties before with regard to the United States treaties with Cuba and South American republics. They may come again. The Canadian reciprocity negotiations therefore are not their cause or their origin. I do not know whether they will even constitute a serious contri-

  1289
  bution to the difficulties. Anyhow, they are a mere incident in possible difficulties with regard to interpretation that have existed for some time past, and with which we may again be confronted. They are difficulties which concern other nations besides ourselves in their trade relations with the United States—difficulties which arise between the United States and other nations, but they are not difficulties specially germane or peculiar to or caused by the Canadian reciprocity negotiations. The right hon. Gentleman, towards the end of his speech, spoke strongly on the subject of Preference, and commented with great satisfaction on the fact that Sir Wilfrid Laurier had, in his most recent speech, declared that he adhered to the policy of Canadian Preference. By that I understood him to mean the Preference which Canada now gives in her own tariff to British trade. That is one side of it, and that is a side which is within his power; the side on which I understood him to speak.
  Mr. BALFOUR: Clearly not, if I may say so, because what I especially dwelt on was that he was going to bring up this question before the Imperial Conference. That clearly implies what we were going to do, and not what they are going to do.
  Sir EDWARD GREY: My recollection is that Canadian Ministers have in recent days more than once declared their adherence to the policy of Preference, and said that they gave that Canadian Preference irrespective of what we might do. I think I am right in saying that Mr. Fielding, in commenting on the Canadian reciprocity negotiations with the United States, declared, without any reference to the Imperial Conference, that they intended to preserve the British Preference, and that in the reciprocity negotiations they retained full liberty to do what they pleased with regard to that Preference.
  Mr. ALFRED LYTTELTON: The existing Preference.
  Sir EDWARD GREY: The existing British Preference. There is no party in Canada which is against the existing Preference which Canada now gives to British goods. There is no such party at the present moment, but if we had embarked so far on the policy of Preference that Preference had been made an obstacle to the reciprocity negotiations with the United States, does anybody believe there would not have already been a powerful party in
  1290
  Canada which would have been opposed to the policy of Preference? The worst service we could have done to this country and to the relations between ourselves and Canada would have been to attempt to impede the policy of reciprocity, and if the declarations which have been made with regard to Preference are satisfactory to right hon. Gentlemen opposite you may depend upon it it is simply because we have been careful not to interfere with the fiscal independence of Canada, and not to put forward any policy of Preference between Great Britain and Canada which would be an obstacle to reciprocity negotiations between Canada and the United States. Diplomatic difficulties the right hon. Gentleman sees to be ahead, but he cannot really, without having followed Canadian affairs very closely in the Canadian Parliament in recent years, be aware of the diplomatic difficulties which are, happily, now not ahead but behind. Had it not been for the devotion and tact of Mr. Bryce, and the attention he has given to Canadian affairs, we might have been face to face any time within the last few years with a demand from Canada for a diplomatic representative of her own at the Embassy at Washington, and that would have been a diplomatic difficulty in comparison with which everything the right hon. Gentleman has forecast to-day would be insignificant. I think more than once, but, certainly, once, in the last few years Sir Wilfrid Laurier has been confronted in the Canadian Parliament with a demand for more diplomatic independence, and even with a definite demand for providing a direct medium whereby the Government in Canada might advise the British Ambassador at Washington. That would mean a Canadian representative at the Embassy at Washington. Sir Wilfrid Laurier resisted that demand successfully in the Canadian Parliament, and he has done it because he has been able to emphasise the point to the assistance which Mr. Bryce has given to Canadian representatives, and to show that under no possible diplomatic conditions could Canada be better served than at present. I would like to quote to the House what Sir Wilfrid Laurier said about a year ago on this point, in reply to one of the many requests on this matter. He said:—
  "There was a time, perhaps twenty years ago, when if my hon. Friend had made the motion he has now made—"
  —that was for a separate representative in the Embassy—
  "I would have been strongly inclined to vote for it"

  1291
  That shows at any rate that in saying there are certain difficulties behind us in this matter I am not conjuring up something which never existed, because Sir Wilfrid Laurier himself says there was a time, twenty years ago, when he might have been strongly inclined to vote for separate representation at the Embassy. Sir Wilfrid went on to say:—
  "But I may say, in the present condition of things, that my ideas on this subject have been very much modified. If we had an attaché at Washington, I do not know that it would be possible for more attention to be paid to the business of Canada than if paid to it by the present occupant of the office. Mr. Bryce has taken unsparing pains to give Canadian affairs as much attention as could been given to them by a native Canadian. First of all he did one thing that was not done by any of his predecessors. As soon as he became Ambassador he visited Canada, going to Ottawa and some of the other large cities and to the country to familiarise himself with all the issues between Canada and the United states. The result has been that in all our relations with that country, if anything has not turned out well, no blame can be attached to Mr. Bryce, because he has taken no action with regard to Canada, except after ample conference, and with the full sanction of the Canadian authorities. I do not believe that if we had an attaché at Washington, we could improve very much the conditions that exist at the present moment. I do not know that it will always be so; perhaps a time will come when we shall think it advantageous to have somebody to take charge of our diplomatic business at Washington, but so long as the conditions continue to be what they are at this moment, I do not think that this want will be seriously felt."
  I think it is impossible to exaggerate the services which Mr. Bryce has rendered and which induced Sir Wilfrid Laurier to meet that demand in the Canadian Parliament in that way. When the right hon. Gentleman was speaking of diplomatic difficulties ahead I could not help thinking that we had escaped diplomatic difficulties far greater than any which he indicated. The services of Mr. Bryce with regard to Canada have been such that most of the questions—nearly all the questions—between Canada and the United States which might have caused friction have been satisfactorily settled, and he has done it in a way which has not only earned the gratitude of Canada, but which has been appreciated in the United States. His action with regard to the Protection and Preservation of Food Fishes Agreement, 1908, the Demarcation of International Boundaries between the United States and Canada Agreement in 1909, and other Agreements, including the Boundary Waters and questions arising along the Boundary between Canada and the United States, and now, lastly, the Reciprocity Agreement. Bearing in mind his action in regard to all these matters surely I was justified in saying the other day it has become an understood thing
  1292
  that when Canadian Ministers go to Washington they should receive assistance from Mr. Bryce. On every occasion, including this last, I believe that assistance has been given in a way which has been in both British and Canadian interests, and the result has been that during recent years, especially since Mr. Bryce has been at Washington, not merely have our relations with the United States been increasingly friendly and cordial, but I believe the relations between the great Dominion of Canada and ourselves were never better than they are to-day. If I am asked what instructions we have to send to Mr. Bryce, I say we have nothing to send except to say that we entirely approve of what he has done, and I believe in all that he has done throughout this, as well as in what we have done and what we have abstained from doing, and some of the things which speakers on the other side seem to infer we ought to have abstained from doing, we have served in the best and highest sense Imperial interests and Imperial unity.
  Colonel YATEmoved, "That Item Class II., Vote 5 (Foreign Office), be reduced by £100."
  The Committee will permit me, perhaps, to say a few words regarding the Baghdad Railway and certain of our interests in Persia. I do not intend, on any account, to ask for information the giving of which would be incompatible with the public interests. But we all know that certain negotiations are going on, and we have had no information about those negotiations, as to which there need be no undue secrecy. If Russia, Germany, and Turkey know that the British public is alive to the interests involved, I think it will certainly make them more careful and will strengthen the hands of the British Government. We saw in the papers a day or two ago that there were certain British negotiations going on with Turkey with regard to the last section of the Baghdad Railway line from Baghdad down to the Gulf, but that section is the one section that is of comparatively small interest to us. We are comparatively independent of that section at the present time, as we already have concessions with regard to river steamers by which we can send our British and Indian goods up to Baghdad, and it is about Indian goods that I, as an old Indian officer, am most specially concerned. We can send our goods by another route up to Baghdad, but the section we are abso-

  1293
  lutely dependent upon is that section of the Baghdad Railway running north to a place called Sadijeh, some twenty or thirty miles further up north of Baghdad, and thence by the branch line to. Khanikin. All traffic which is too heavy or too bulky for mule or camel transport must go by sea to Busreh and thence by river steamers to Baghdad, and along the road to Khanikin on the Persian frontier before it can be got into Persia. When the Baghdad Railway is built these goods will have to go by this railway from Baghdad to Khanikin. It is on this section of the railway that all that traffic, now worth a million or more a year, must travel in the future. So far as British and Indian trade is concerned, therefore, it is necessary that there should be some stipulations. In answer to my question yesterday the right hon. Gentleman said:—
  "I would refer the hon. Member to Article 24 of the 'Cahier des Charges' attached to the Baghdad Railway Convention of March, 1903, which stipulates that all tariffs, whether general, special, proportional, or differential, shall be applied to all passengers and consigners of goods without distinction. The Article further provides that all such tariffs must receive the approval of the Ottoman Government, who are hound to prohibit all adverse treatment of British subjects in matters of commerce. His Majesty's Government will, of course, take steps if they are required to claim that the stipulation for fair treatment should be observed."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th March, 1911, cols, 1007–1008].
  The right hon. Gentleman was asked if the article in question prevents the imposition of preferential rates, but he was not able to give a definite reply to that. Therefore, with regard to British interests in the Baghdad Railway, I think it will be acknowledged that it is not only in the section from Baghdad town down to the Gulf that our interests lie, but in the province of Baghdad to the north of the town of Baghdad, which includes the branch line to Khanikin.
  There is another point which we must always bear in mind, and that is that our interests in the Baghdad province are of far longer standing to those of any other country. Our political Resident is of far older standing and has a far superior position to the Consul-Generals of the other Powers. Our interests, and especially our Indian interests, comprise not only the ancient trade between India and Mesopotamia, but there is also all the Pilgrim traffic between India and the Holy places at Kerbela and Nejef to be considered, as well as the large trade with Persia through Baghdad. Negotiations are going on between Germany and Russia regarding the junction of the German line with the Russian line at Khani-
  1294
  kin We have not only to see that our trade is protected on the German portion of the line, but also on the Russian portion. That brings me to the proposed Russian Railway through Persia. In out arrangement with regard to Persia of August, 1907, the two Governments of Great Britain and Russia recorded their desire for the permanent establishment of equal advantages for the trade and industry of all nations, but we have no information as to whether that recorded desire will really safeguard our trade with Persia. The line is said to be, and is called by its promoters an international line, but it has already met with considerable opposition in Russia itself, from the merchants of Moscow and others who think their trade will be undermined, but so far as one can judge it really looks as if this line was calculated to give access to Russian goods to the markets of Central and Southern Persia rather than to give access to British and Indian goods to Eastern and Northern Persia.
  First of all, I understand British goods are not to be allowed to pass through in transit from Batoum, in the Black Sea, into Persia by this proposed line. Secondly, there is at present a considerable trade in British goods with Tabriz and North-East Persia by caravan from the Turkish port of Trebizond on the Black Sea, but Russia, I understand, refuses to permit the building of a railway along this route to join up with the Trans-Persian line, by which this trade might be developed. The question is, What safeguard have we that the same spirit will not be shown towards the entry of British trade into Persia by the Baghdad Khanikin route on the South-West, and on this point I trust we shall be given some reliable information. The whole future of the British and Indian trade with Persia depends largely on this point. As to the proposed junction of this Trans-Persian line with the Indian railways, the question is so much in the clouds at present that I need not pursue it further, but I would just point out that the Russian and Indian railways have different gauges—the Russian gauge is five feet, the Indian five feet six inches, and where is the break of gauge to be? If to the south of Yezd all the advantage will be with Russia; she will have the populous and productive parts of Persia opened up to her, while to India will be left the desert. It looks, therefore, as if the Russian promoters

  1295
  are seeking to make what must be regarded as a Persian State railway subserve Russian ends, and that the so-called International question is only a catchword.
  There is one other point that concerns Persia, and that is the Muscat arms traffic. I have here the Muscat Consular Report for last year, 1909–10, just published. In this it is stated that owing to the measures taken by the British and Persian Governments and the Sheikhs on the littoral of the Persian Gulf to restrict the traffic, the export of arms and ammunition has declined to a great extent. This has resulted in a corresponding reduction in the import to Muscat, and the total value of imports for the year was: Belgium £35,000, united Kingdom £23,000; Germany £21,000, France £15,000, Roumania £8,000. Belgium heads the list and Great Britain and Germany come next. France only sent £15,000, or under 15 per cent. of the total imports, and yet I understand that at The Hague Conference, when other European Powers were willing to co-operate in putting a stop to this traffic, France was the only country to hold out, and by this dog-in-the-manger policy, despite the smallness of her interests, is thus largely the cause of the present raiding and plundering and lawlessness throughout south-eastern Persia and the Afghan borderland. It is due to the selfish policy in this matter pursued by France that the British and Indian Governments are put to all the expense of their naval operations for the suppression of gun-running from Muscat to the Persian coast, which Persia by herself is utterly unable to prevent. Every outlaw, both in Persia and on the Afghan border, is now getting armed with modern small-bore rifles of precision to the disturbance of the peace in all the country round. The Persian Government we know are helpless, and yet this traffic in arms is just as disturbing to Persia as it is to our own Indian borderland. Why, therefore, have we done nothing to assist Persia in the matter in some really practical manner? I have here a telegram from "The Times" of 4th March, headed, "Afghans Proceeding to the Coast":—
  "Advices from the south show that Afghans are proceeding to the coast in unusually large numbers, presumably in expectation of the arrival of consignments of arm". Six hundred are in the neighbourhood of Bam, and a much larger force is said to be nearer Baluchistan.
  "In the present temper of the tribesmen the situation gives vise to anxiety, as the Indian Government's central Persian telegraph line runs through this zone."
  1296
  These Afghan raiders are invading Persia against the will of the Persian Government, and yet we all know that the Persian Government have not got a man in the whole of Southern Persia who dares to oppose them. Why do we not, therefore, assist the Persians to stop this invasion instead of waiting till these bands of invaders reach the coast, where our men-of-war have to deal with them at great disadvantage. I remember when I was Chief Commissioner of Baluchistan, a band of raiders invaded Mekran, and captured and occupied a little fort there. We, without delay, assaulted and captured that fort, and killed or took prisoner every raider in it; and the troops then marched on into Persia, and, acting in conjunction with the Persian governor and the Persian troops, reduced the raiders to order, and the Baluchistan frontier has been undisturbed in that way ever since. Why has not the same precedent been followed since? As the Persian local Governor is powerless to act alone, why have we not co-operated with him. If I remember right, an Indian regiment was once sent to Robat, on the Persian frontier, for the very purpose of stopping these Afghan bands of gun-runners, and yet when it got to the frontier that regiment was prohibited from crossing the Persian frontier, and had to sit idle on one side of a boundary pillar, while the Afghan bands marched up with their rifles on the other side.
  8.0 P.M.
  That is neither business for Persia nor for England. If France, in the face of all Europe, continues this dog in the manger policy, and, on the ground of an old commercial treaty with Muscat of fifty years ago, refuses to permit the Sultan of Muscat to put any restriction on the import of arms into his own capital, a stop ought to be put to this traffic, which is so dangerous both to India and Persia, in other ways.
  One word as to the hardships and sufferings of our poor sailors engaged in putting down this gun-running. No one who has not been in the Persian Gulf can have the faintest idea of the terrible heat of the summer there. You might as well put 100 men into an iron oven as into an iron gunboat to serve there. There is one good vessel, the "Sphynx," a wooden ship with large portholes, which is the only vessel fitted for this service. A sister vessel belonging to the Indian Marine at one time had guns put into her and was ready for the work, but owing to the Admiralty

  1297
  refusing to allow any Indian Marine ship to carry guns they had to be taken out again. Let the guns be put back into these ships. There should be no jealousy' because one is a naval ship and the other belongs to the Indian Marine. It would be much better if we could have some of our old Indian Navy boats back again in the Persian Gulf—some good, solid wooden vessels which are quite corn-solid wooden vessels which are quite competent to deal with Arab dhows and local tribesmen. Let us have wooden vessels for service on the gun-running blockade in the hot weather. I should say, given these boats and given assistance on land to the Persian Government, I see no reason whatever why we should not be able to put down this dangerous traffic. We have had more than one of our Indo-European telegraph stations and the houses of the resident signallers threatened by these Afghan bands of armed men. This gun-running is a very great danger to us, and it is absolutely necessary that we should take steps in conjunction with Persia to put a stop to it at the earliest possible moment. The Persian Government is helpless in the matter, and it depends on us whether we are to risk the cutting of the Central Persian Telegraph line and the discontinuance of all telegraphic communication with Persia between Europe and India. If we do nothing to put a stop to this we have no one but ourselves to blame. I therefore ask that this question may be taken into consideration and any information which the right hon. Gentleman can give on the subject we shall be very pleased to get.
  Mr. NOEL BUXTON: It is very welcome indeed to me, and I think to many Members on this side of the House, to find on the other side so great a solicitude for the welfare of Persia as has been manifested by the hon. Member. I think we may congratulate ourselves also that the Leader of the Opposition gave us a lead in venturing upon this very delicate field which is now occupied by questions affecting the near East. I feel myself that in venturing on this question we ought to feel a very grave responsibility, and before we do so we ought to make up our minds that we will set before ourselves two conditions at least—first, that we will say nothing which can possibly be taken as offensive to any friendly Power, and, secondly, that we should purify our minds of any desire for making party points in
  1298
  a question of foreign relations. This is the first chance for a very long time that the House has had of expressing to the Foreign Secretary in what way it supports his policy. An opportunity for the expression of opinion is very welcome, and the loss of it to some extent last year was keenly felt, and if this is one of the allotted days of Supply it is very regrettable that the time, all too short, should be encroached upon to so great an extent as it is to-day. I should like to say, not at all by way of criticism but by way of assuring the Foreign Secretary, that he has very active and very keen support for his avowed policy, and that it seems to some of us on this side that there are respects in which that policy is not carried out so fully as we should be prepared to back it and see it carried out. I entirely agree with the framework of that policy, but, if I may quote the cynicism which Talleyrand applied to woman, it is a good idea rather imperfectly carried out—a cynicism which Talleyrand failed to establish, but which I hope I shall not fail to establish, because I speak with a great sense of responsibility in regard to one or two points in connection with the Foreign Secretary's policy. It is, I believe, an axiom that the Foreign Secretary is a trustee for the welfare of the nation, and as such a trustee he cannot go to any extent beyond the views held by the people. I should like to assure him that in this policy, which is a policy of peace and friendliness, he will be well entitled to go further and to act with more vigour in some particular directions.
  To come at once to my illustrations. They are drawn from the field that we have been dwelling upon this evening, the Persian question, the Turkish question, and that question which is inextricably bound up with it, the German question. I wish to assure the right hon. Baronet of the feeling which is widely held on this side of the House that the Persian question is in no sense a party question. We have seen in the speech just delivered that there is unanimity upon the main objects of the policy of the present Government. We all have some slight notion, at least, of the strategical aspects of the Persian question, and I am glad to think from that speech that on both sides of the House there is felt a very keen interest also in an ancient civilisation and in the value to the world of preserving, if possible, that civilisation, and seeing it prosper still further. There is no clash whatever to-day,

  1299
  happily, between sentiment and interest in the question either of Persia or of Turkey. There have been unhappy periods in the past when there was a great clash of sentiment and interests, but it is a very happy feature that to-day there is none at all. Two points have given rise to some disquietude on this side, and I daresay upon the other side of the House, namely, the ultimatum, as it was called, last year, and the long negotiations which took place in connection with the Bank of Persia and the City house of Seligmann. There is a very keen desire felt in the House that the principle on which the Government should proceed is a desire to see the prosperity of Persia and a desire to bear in mind the interest and the value of the Persian point of view, and a desire to consider what is first of all for the good and the probable prosperity of Persia. There are objections raised, of course, to the whole idea of perpetuating the state of Persia. There is the argument that Persia cannot govern herself. I do not desire to speak on any occasion without my book. I have never been in Persia, and I offer no opinion on that, but I am very much struck by the fact that some close observers who know Persia very well, and some who are there at present who not very long ago felt entire misgiving as to the capacity of the Persians to revive themselves at all, have within the last year, and on further acquaintance with the Persians, changed their minds, and are very hopeful indeed.
  There is the other argument that inevitably, in course of time, there must be encroachment upon Persia by the Russian Empire, but I see no inconsistency at all between friendship for Persian prosperity and friendship for Russia. The interests of the world are increasingly commercial, and in many senses decreasingly military. The free commercial routes which can be established and will be established through Turkey are increasingly satisfying the legitimate ambition of the Great Powers, and make it possible that the interests of our friendship with Russia, as well as with Persia, are perfectly compatible. There is an index that I would suggest for the success of our policy in regard to Persia, and that is the self-respect of Persia. I think there is particular need to be very cautious in conducting negotiations with such a State as that. One needs to be very cautious lest the way in which things are put should do something
  1300
  to injure the prestige and self-respect of the Persians. I know that no one is more capable than Sir George Barclay of putting things in the right way. This House would support a very great care for the self-respect of such a State as Turkey or Persia, and there is some danger that tendencies or prejudices which are in some cases the peculiar quality of Englishmen, may give rise to expressions which are misunderstood by such people as the Persians. I am sure the Foreign Secretary is glad that the House should cordially support a very tender regard for the self-respect of a Power which she desires to see prosper.
  To come to Turkey, it suits our book that Turkey should be prosperous, as it does that Persia should be prosperous. If Turkey is a civilised State, we may even readily, as we did in the case of Japan, abandon some of the rights which we hold under the capitulations, and we shall be glad as a nation to do so if and when the proper time arrives. There was a danger to the world arising from the condition of Turkey as the sick man. There is always a danger in every unclaimed inheritance to the amity of the sick man's relations, and there was such a danger in the case of Turkey, and Turkey's recovery is a great boon to the world.
  And it being a quarter-past Eight of the clock, and there being Private Business set down by direction of the Chairman of Ways and Means, under Standing Order No. 8, further Proceeding was postponed without Question put.

SUPPLY.
  CIVIL SERVICE AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS, 1911–12.

    VOTE ON ACCOUNT.
    Postponed Proceeding on Amendment [Colonel Yate] to reduce by £100 the Vote on Account—£19,351,000.
    Question again proposed. Debate resumed.
    Mr. NOEL BUXTON: I cannot say how I regret being compelled to encroach upon the speeches of hon. Members on both sides of the House, and I think the great curtailment of time which has taken place to-day should entitle us to some consideration this year in regard to opportunities for debating foreign policy which were almost entirely absent last year. I was endeavouring to express the very keen support that some of us feel on this side of the House for the Foreign Secretary's policy in its full essence. It is to our minds a great idea, but somewhat imperfectly carried out, owing, I think, in great measure to that very absence of public discussion which would lend to it greater force and greater facility of expression. I take an example from our policy in relation to Turkey which is entirely bound up, in my judgment, with our relations towards Germany. We have towards the
    1328
    subject populations of Turkey some special obligations resulting from our actions in the past and from our special treaty commitments. These obligations entitle us and compel us to pay very close attention to what is the nature of the Turkish Government. Our attitude towards the Turkish Government, which has been so happily expressed by the Foreign Secretary to-day, coincides, I think, now with our duty towards the subject population, and therefore I think the Government is justified in holding towards the Turkish Government cordial language of approval such as we have heard in some measure today. I am very glad that the Government has come to this conclusion. I think during the last year or two the attitude of the Government has been rather too cold towards the Turkish Government. I think this is not justified by the defects and mistakes which have occurred during the past year. There was a time in the past when many of us felt compelled to express the strongest disapproval of cordial relations with Turkey. That was a time when in the words of a Turkish historian, using somewhat grim and entirely unconscious humour, the Turks were accustomed to give to the Christians, as he expressed it, "the treatment which they were in any case to expect at the judgment day." Those days are happily passed, I believe, for ever. Therefore, I think it is a time when we may be somewhat more cordial in our attitude to those politicians, for the most part young politicians, who have achieved the extraordinary miracle, of

    1329
    the Turkish Revolution. Let us give credit where credit is due, and not be loth to praise as well as to blame. This is a calculation of the psychological qualities of the Turks. We want to exercise influence with them, and we want to look after our interests, which are in many cases joint interests with other countries, and I think that we are entitled to express an opinion slightly critical of that too English coldness which the Government has shewn towards the Turk. I will quote an opinion, not to rely upon my own opinion, of the eminent leader of the Consular Bar in Constantinople, a man who has been distinguished with the honour of knighthood, and who has a strong opinion on the point, which may interest the House—I mean Sir Edwin Pears. He writes:—
    "There is an increasing number who believe that the young Turks should be backed up whilst they are also told of their blunders. My experience is that they listen and attend when complaint is made by those in whose friendship they have confidence."
    So I am sure it is the wish of all parties in the House that they should have confidence in our friendship when it is based upon right conduct on their part. I think, to a slight extent the Government has failed to convince them that they could, in proper circumstances, earn that cordial friendship of ours. It is a very happy thing that within the last few days the Foreign Secretary made a statement expressing his desire for the prosperity of Turkey and a very happy comment has been made upon his expression of goodwill in the Turkish Press. One paper expressed it, I think, in a manner which should give us gratification, contrasting our conduct (rather tardily friendly) with the conduct of other Powers, and it quoted a Turkish proverb, which runs: "The friend admonishes sincerely, the enemy laughs in his sleeves." The policy of coldness and of rebuffs, I think, has not been a success, and if it has now been abandoned I trust the Foreign Secretary will push his cordial attitude in a vigorous way. In Turkey, I think, we should be rather more active than we have been. I am not suggesting a policy of insane philanthropic adventure of any kind at all, but I would recall the English precedent, which is one of the chief features of the history of English politics in Turkey, the precedent of one of our great Ambassadors, Stratford Canning. The British Ambassador at Constantinople may very well make himself a great local influence. I hope that that idea will be carried out in the future. I suggest one or two samples of the manner
    1330
    in which that policy might be carried out The hon. Member for Staffordshire (Mr. Lloyd), whose knowledge and definition of views on these and other foreign questions readily entitle him to great influence upon his side of the House, shares with me, I believe, the idea that Great Britain has neglected an opportunity in Turkey in regard to the British school. Other Powers spend many times as much money as we do upon our British school. The Turks are very quick to, notice that we neglect our educational duties in their capital. I myself visited the school the other day, and I saw that by comparison with the German and the French school it has a mere handful of Turkish scholars acquiring the English education which many Turks are very anxious to give to their sons. I suggest a sample of what might be done and what I trust before long will be done in a larger measure. I welcome the declaration of the Foreign Secretary that he is inquiring further from the Ambassador on that point.
    There is another thing which I think we might have done. The French Government is very forward in making facilities for Turkish students to take advantage in Paris of the medical and the engineering schools, and I think, considering the immense influence of the English in Turkey, we might also do something of that kind-There is in Turkey an immense underlying: current of pro-English feeling, and, considering the long course of British policy in favour of Turkey, it is not wonderful that there is an ineradicable preference for the English. It should not be beyond the power of skilled diplomacy to take great advantage of that. Everyone in the House will recognise the skill which will be brought to bear upon that subject by our present Ambassador, Sir Gerard Lowther. I hope that his orders and instructions are in that sense. What are the instructions of the German Ambassador is very evident to anyone acquainted with him and to anyone who has closely followed the activity which he displays, and the very frequent attentions which are showered upon Turkish politicians by the German and also the Austrian Embassy. It is very fortunate that our policy in Turkey need not in any sense at all be anti-German. A great statesman said that in Asia there is room for us all. I trust it may prove to be so, because it is perfectly true that, in a legitimate, commercial sense, in the Near East there is room for all the energies which all the

    1331
    Great Powers can put forward. We in the course of the last ten or twelve years have been not only complacent lookers on at German industry, but positively the backers and instigators of German enterprise. It will be a great disaster if, in connection with this most delicate question of the Baghdad Railway, we should be influenced in the smallest degree by any sort of fear, blind or otherwise, of Germany. We have in the past been influenced by blind fear of Russia, and what advantage did we ever derive from giving way to it? I will say no more on the Baghdad Railway question, because, as we all hope, it is the subject of negotiation, and in my judgment it is better to be silent. Though I share the hatred he expressed the other night, of kilometric guarantees, I do think we may assure the Government that they will find very cordial support if they avoid any needless difficulties in the way of a general settlement of the Baghdad Railway question. We desire that it should be pushed on.
    That brings us by obvious sequence to the relations in which this question involves us with Germany. You cannot separate the Persian question, the Turkish question, and the German question. They are the same, and the same principle should be applied to them all. I venture to think that the friendly policy laid down by the Foreign Secretary would find even more support than it has done up to the present if discussion were invited and encouraged in the country. What we want to see is a policy of sympathetic activity—sympathy and activity in regard to Turkey and Persia. And if there is to be any sort of greater vigour in that regard it must be expressed by the diplomatists who represent England in those countries. It is a policy which I think justifies even greater activity. In regard to Germany it implies greater activity on the part of the Foreign Secretary himself in educating public opinion. It is a policy for which I believe there exists a cordial feeling on both sides of the House which would justify him in exercising more activity. This whole field of difficulties requires, as we all see, a circle of agreements which would form the bases of better relations. You cannot improve our relations with Germany until matters are set straight in regard to Turkey and Persia, and conversely you cannot set things straight in Turkey and Persia unless you are on good relations with Germany. This is the policy avowed by the Government, but I
    1332
    venture to think that it is not perfectly well understood abroad. Everyone is glad that there is talk now of bringing these long-drawn negotiations and discussions to an Agreement. Everyone is delighted to think that there will be a specific Agreement come to at no very distant date, but the Foreign Secretary will have the public at his back, I venture to say, if he pushed on the negotiations towards an Agreement, because the public hope not only for improvement, but for perfection, in regard to Anglo-German relations.
    One trouble which exists in regard to these questions of strained relations, which are matters of notoriety, is that they are not only a disaster to the two countries concerned, but that they are a disaster in other countries, and especially in Turkey. My point is this: The state of irritation and the fear of conceivable conflict is a disturbing factor in very many countries besides the two main factors in the situation. It is a disturbing factor in Turkey. There is a division of Turkish opinion between those of a more conciliatory disposition and the military section. The military section exists in every country. It derives the main part of its force from the fact that there might conceivably be a great conflict and that a conflict is frequently talked about. It is that which encourages militarism in many a country. But the business I am concerned with is rather the discouragement of it in Turkey. We are all anxious to support the more conciliatory party in Turkey. In order that it may come to the top it is necessary that the disturbance I have alluded to should be removed from the list of factors which govern political forces in that country. I trust that Agreements will be announced in the not very distant future which will constitute what I remember not very long ago the Foreign Secretary described as a sedative to a somewhat inflamed situation. It seems to me that this is really the Navy question, for this might be brought about by an improvement of feeling with an immense economy in the naval expenditure of all parties, and yet maintain what I myself desire to see, what the Prime Minister has called a supremacy intact, unassailable, and unchallengable.
    There is a general difficulty, I think, arising to some extent from the English type of mind. There are some habits of English diplomacy which in my judgment are too English. I will not, at this hour, encroach on your time by going into details of what I mean. It is in any case a

    1333
    very difficult matter to explain. But there are habits of mind of the English which to some extent interfere with what we all professedly avow in our foreign policy—the practice of sympathetic activity towards both the weak races and towards the great power which is the subject of discussion. There is a school which depreciates the power of words and ideas, and therefore reduces the whole of its national valuation to a matter of mathematical calculation, which says that A is able to beat B, and C is not able or willing to come to the rescue of B, and therefore it is inevitable that there will be a conflict. But everyone knows that in fact nothing is more untrue. If it were true there would be perpetual war. That school of thought which denies the power of words and ideas is condemned by the whole trend of modern science as unscientific and ignorant. At all events, that is a school to which the Leader of the Opposition does not belong, and I do not think that we need despair of finding that he places it in his philosophy to go on utilising the forces of opinion which we know in the long run govern the relations of Europe. I shall be asked for practical proposals. I want to suggest that there is a case for a definite propaganda. This Government has earned very great credit by its establishment, for instance, of the international entertainment fund and by the international exhibition committee. These are things which I am sure all sides cordially welcome. If money is spent upon them nothing in the end is a greater economy than the spending of that money. We have made great progress in social life. I think a corresponding progress has not been made in international life in the positive construction of peaceful ideas which Foreign Secretaries and Ministers might set themselves to carry out. This is not a sentimental idea. I think we have gone back to some extent from the level which had been reached half a century ago. I would like to appeal to a precedent to show that the new fact is not in the propaganda of peace, but in the decay of these propaganda. Let me give an example to indicate the sort of view which Foreign Secretaries took fifty or sixty years ago. In 1845 Sir Robert Peel was writing M. Guizot, the great French Minister, and he said:—
    "Our united labours for the last few years have established foundations of accord strong enough to bear the shock of all ordinary casualities. We have succeeded in elevating the tone and spirit of the nations; have taught them to regard something higher than paltry jealousies and hostile rivalries, and to esteem
    1334
    and feel fully all that moral and social influence which cordial relations between the countries give to each for every good and beneficent purpose."
    Is there to-day any activity in progress which corresponds with the activity expressed in those words? Ministers deny themselves support that might be gained from more publicity and from an expression of opinion on their part.
    We all welcomed with the utmost cordiality the expressions of the Prime Minister at the Guildhall last autumn; but I do not know that even on that occasion we attained to quite the level which has been reached by the German Minister (Dr. von Bothmann-Hollweg), and I do think that is a thing which requires seeing to very much and very urgently. If there is in Germany a feeling that England is a danger, though we are to some extent ourselves to blame for the misapprehension which exists, it is a misapprehension of the deepest die, and we hope the Foreign Secretary will see that expression is given by every possible means to what is the feeling of this country, and that feeling, I think I may say, is one of cordial appreciation for all genuine progress in any legitimate way in any nation, especially that one which is perhaps, of all others, most akin to ourselves. It is a feeling which would regard an attack upon an ostensibly friendly nation as an execrable, and in the strictest sense, a damnable act, an act which must be condemned by the conscience that guides not only educated men but guides the man in the street. A workman does not kill his rival who gets the job, even when there is no other job to obtain. That is the feeling which I think actuates the working classes, and I believe the feeling of the working classes could be brought in with international advantage. They agree that war is all very well for the swells, but poor men must help each other. I have alluded to exhibitions and I do think that every opportunity should be taken of showing the cordial co-operation we wish to manifest in German affairs when occasion arises to join in exhibitions in Germany. I regret very much that action has not been taken this year to join in the exhibition on hygiene at Dresden. That is a small point, but it is an illustration. There is one other idea. This necessity for agreement has long been felt. Is it not a case for a Special Mission, such as in the past has not been unheard of in the course of international negotiations? Is it not possible now, when

    1335
    things are dragging so very long, to have a Special Mission to Berlin, or a special conference in London, if ordinary diplomatic machinery is not adequate? No one has greater gifts for such a mission than the Foreign Secretary all sides of the House agree. There is a precedent for such a mission in the visit of Lord Beaconsfield to Berlin. There is another and more closely similar precedent in the mission of the Duke of Wellington to Petersburg in 1827. He was not Foreign Secretary, but he was a member of Lord Liverpool's Government If such a precedent were followed, and there was an attempt to accomplish a general agreement with Germany, who could more perfectly perform the task than the Minister so renowned for his intimacy with German life and German people, the Minister for War? There is an answer, I know, to the proposals of greater activity, and that is that Ministers are overworked. So they are, but how can help be given them to make up for the overwhelming situation in which they find themselves. I venture to think that the solution lies in greater publicity and greater positive invitation to public feeling on the part of Ministers, lies in fuller discussion in this House, which has been so severely curtailed by comparison with the past in recent times. Why not call in the new world to redress the balance of the old? There is a new world represented in this House, as we all think most happily represented, by the Labour party. The Labour party is the only party which, during the last few months has set itself to make a point of peace education. This is a matter of public education, and unless you totally deny that there is any force controlling the world except material force we all agree it is a matter of education, and how is education carried out unless by positive effort. Diplomacy has a very old tradition and a very rigid tradition. It is represented in our case by a very small service, a very tiny number of men compared with other Services. They lead a life isolated, they are underpaid, they are extremely able and extremely charming, but what have they to help them in their work by way of the influence of public opinion. I think if public opinion expressed its real feeling it would be an immense assistance to diplomatists in every part of the world and to the Foreign Secretary. We all
    1336
    know that public opinion if it had had its, way in time past would have saved us very great blunders. For instance, it would undoubtedly have saved us from the Crimean War.
    We are dealing to-day with hard facts. We are dealing with Estimates, and we are asked this year to spend no less a sum than £628,000 upon our communications, with other States, quite apart from any war expenditure. Sir Robert Peel, in his speech in the Debate in 1850 said:—
    "Diplomacy is a costly engine for maintaining peace, a remarkable instrument used by civilised Nations for the purpose of preventing war. Unless it be used to appease the angry passions of individual men, and to check the feeling which arises out of national resentment, it is an instrument not only costly but mischievous."
    Mr. G. A. LLOYD: I hope the House will allow me in the short time at our disposal to pass from the atmosphere of inoffensive amiability into which we have been plunged during the last twenty minutes or half an hour, and to refer to some-matters of concrete importance with regard to the Baghdad Railway. The hon. Member opposite (Mr. Noel Buxton) declared that in Asia there was room for all of us. If that statement included the Persian Gulf, we on this side should give it an emphatic denial, because in the Persian Gulf, politically speaking, there is no room for any two competing nations at all. It is from that point of view that I welcome the statement that we have elicited from the Foreign Secretary, reaffirming the view which has been held by British statesmen for a long time as to our exclusive and paramount position in the Persian Gulf. I welcome that statement especially, because the other day the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs was good enough to inform me that there was no need whatever to make any reaffirmation of our policy, because no changes whatever had taken place to make such a reaffirmation necessary. At the time at which I spoke we had recently heard from the Press that certain negotiations between Russia and Germany were actually in progress. I do not know if he suggested then that those negotiations in no way altered the position; if he did, I can only say that his statement met with considerable criticism in the Press of France and Germany, which in leading articles deplored his silence as being "designed, abnormal, and very re grettable." I do not know if he would consider the Russo-German negotiations, which vitally affect our position on the Baghdad Line, to be of no interest to this country. I am glad to think that to-night the Foreign Secretary has given us some

    1337
    undertaking, if not a completely satisfactory one, that the matter is having some attention.
    I had hoped to-night to give some history of the present situation with regard to the Baghdad Railway. Unfortunately, there is no time to do so, and I will pass directly to the main point which affects this country commercially, and that is the Khanikin line, which the Leader of the Opposition introduced to our notice this afternoon. Before doing so, I will just remind the Committee that there is one other branch of the Baghdad Railway which is of some considerable importance to this country, from quite a different point of view, namely, the branch which will in a short time connect Aleppo, by a branch from Killis, with the main trunk line between Constantinople and Baghdad. This perhaps is not a matter of very immediate concern, but in reference to it I will call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to a very interesting monograph recently published in its second edition by an eminent German economomist. From that monograph it is very clear that in Germany the Germans themselves attributed great importance to linking-up the Syrian line with the main Baghdad line, because they conceived that England was most vulnerable in two places—one in Egypt and one on the Persian Gulf, and the Syrian connection would be useful to Turkey, and through Turkey to Germany, if at any time such a line were needed for strategic purposes. I do not want to dwell upon that. I think those who remember the negotiations regarding the Akaba incident as well as I do, and remember what took place with respect to the Egyptian frontier, may, without any offence to any foreign nation, well pause to consider what aspect strategically such Syrian connection may have in the future for England. On the strictly and purely commercial question regarding the Khanikin line I would ask the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the answer he gave to a question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Melton, as to what he was going to do to safeguard our interests on the Baghdad-Khanikin line. The substance of the right hon. Gentleman's answer lay in the fact that be considered that in Article 24 of the "Cahier des Charges" there was ample security against discriminatory tariffs.
    The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition made the point that the right hon. Gentleman had not quoted in full this 24th Article and had missed out
    1338
    a very important part. The Foreign Secretary told us that the Article provided that these tariffs, whether they be differential or not, admitted the principle of differential tariffs and were applicable to all nations; but he forgot to tell us that in case of urgency the assent of the Imperial Ottoman Government was not necessary, nor was a notification to the Imperial Commissioners. If the right hon. Gentleman is going to base the whole million pounds' worth of British trade on the reading of Article 24 of the "Cahier des Charges," which in cases of urgency do not have to be referred to the Ottoman Government at all, I think it is a very slender scheme. I think Manchester merchants, tradespeople, and workpeople will have a good deal to say if that is all the right hon. Gentleman has to say as to safeguarding their trade. There is nothing in that particular Article that can possibly safeguard our trade. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition pointed out clearly that it was perfectly possible for a German railway which may be constructed there to keep within the terms of this Article 24 and yet impose a tariff which can be completely discriminatory against British goods.
    Let us take the case of articles going up by that line. The main goods from Manchester and India that go up the Persian Gulf and by the British steamship line to Baghdad, and by the Baghdad-Khanikin route to Persia, are cotton goods. The main German goods that go are of very small value, and are generally known as fancy, or cheap, goods. I put it to hon. Gentlemen opposite: What on earth is there to prevent on that German railway a very low nominal tariff being put on those goods in which Germany is interested, and a prohibitory tariff on those goods in which Britain is interested? There is absolutely nothing.
    It is the old most-favoured-nation clause illusion! I shall be very interested to hear from the Foreign Secretary in what way he thinks we can safeguard our trade. The Foreign Secretary twitted the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition for having given him no suggestion as to what he could possbly do to alter the status quo with regard to the Baghdad Railway, with regard to the safeguarding of our trade on the Khanikin line. I can give him an answer. I would ask him whether he thinks, to use a slang phrase, that "the game is quite up" on the Khanikin line? I do not. I think there is a great deal to

    1339
    be done in negotiation in regard to getting equal terms in the control of the Khanikin line. I am quite prepared, as I have done before, to show him the means by which I think it can be brought about.
    Sir E. GREY: What means?
    Mr. LLOYD: By building from Kut-el-Amara, below Baghdad, which would give our trade free entry from the Persian Gulf.
    Sir E. GREY: The hon. Gentleman says I twitted the Leader of the Opposition for not having made a suggestion, but I went on to make a suggestion of my own. He omitted to say that I stated we should seek considerable concessions of our own, which would be under our control for British trade.
    Mr. LLOYD: The right hon. Gentleman is quite prepared to base his whole case upon getting such concessions as will safeguard our own trade. I suggest one for Kut-el-Amara to Baghdad. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will give us an assurance that the claim will be pressed for an alternative railway to the Persian Gulf, a railway that would safeguard our trade from any discriminatory tariff on the Khanikin line. So far we have no safeguard for over one million of trade.
    Sir E. GREY: I attach great importance to the suggestion which I did make in general terms as to the possibility of other routes, which I think the hon. Member ought not to ignore, but I do not propose to prejudice in advance the success of any steps we may take in that direction by specifying beforehand the particular applications we may make.
    Mr. LLOYD: I quite understand that, and I should not like to press the right hon. Gentleman in any matter of foreign policy to specify in detail what he is going to do in the future, but he deliberately challenged us to give him an answer as to what we should do. We should not have ourselves have brought up this question.
    Sir E. GREY: I am not in the least complaining of the hon. Member's suggestion. I make no complaint of his suggestion.
    Mr. LLOYD: The right hon. Gentleman challenged us absolutely and categorically to provide a solution and he twitted the Leader of the Opposition for not having made any suggestion. I provide a sugge-
    1340
    stion, and when I do so the right hon. Gentleman says we do not propose to prejudice in advance the negotiations we are carrying on. From that point of view it is not a tolerable position. I have given an answer and I hope such a line will be negotiated, as I believe the right hon. Gentleman is concerned to see that British trade is properly safeguarded down the main route to the Persian Gulf. When we were considering this only ten years ago, before the Anglo-Russian Convention, which many of us criticised so bitterly, and which we still deplore in its terms, not on it main object, we held the whole of the route from Baghdad to Kermanshah. There is every prospect to-day, and has been in the last five years since the present Government came into office, that the Persian section of the route will be given to the Russian Government, and in practice to the German Government. To many of us that is an intolerable position for British trade, and we see no justification whatever for it. I remember the arguments put forward in connection with the Anglo-Russian Concession, when we were told there was no reason why in neutral zones we should not have equal rights with Russia. The right hon. Gentleman has forgotten he has allowed all the termini to be included in the Russian sphere; you cannot build a railway to a spot in the desert, and that is all what you have left in the neutral zone at the present time. I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider one other point in regard to the Baghdad-Khanikin route. I want him to take his mind back to the days of Stratford Canning, Lord Stratford de Redcliffe, and to his correspondence with regard to another great trade route which he created, and which has been of great value to British trade—I refer to the route through Trebizond, Erzeroum Tabiz, and Teheran, from the Black Sea into Northern Persia. If the right hon. Baronet takes the trouble to read the correspondence that passed in those days and the pains taken to form that route for the benefit of British trade, and if he will look at that route to-day, and see what has happened to it by following the policy of natural channels, he will see that, year by year, while the trade of Trebizond increases, our trade decreases annually owing to Russian subsidies and our own apathy with regard to this particular route. The trade there is measured by transport capacity, and only fourteen years ago some 40,000 camels a year were being loaded up with British

    1341
    goods to take into Persia. Only three years ago that total of 40,000 had sunk to about 22,000, and now that total has sunk to under 20,000 camel loads. Now that route has practically been abandoned in regard to British trade, and if the right hon. Gentleman will read the report of his own Consul for Persia he will see in the opening lines that he has a very unsatisfactory year to record, because British trade has sunk while Russian trade has increased. According to the right hon. Gentleman's own report, British trade has decreased by 11.1 per cent. last year, while Russian trade has increased by 3.75 per cent. If the right hon. Gentleman finds any satisfaction in that state of things in Persia with regard to our trade, then I cannot agree with him. I think it most deplorable, and I hope measures to secure our trade interests will be taken in connection with the Baghdad-Khanikin line, or any other subsidiary line, by the Foreign Office.
    Lastly, I wish to refer to the political situation that obtains below Baghdad. I think the Leader of the Opposition has stated the case very plainly to-night. We all agree that, so far as the Baghdad Railway is within Turkish territory we can have no real decisive claims upon it, but we may negotiate in respect of our old privileges and the old historic character of our relations with Turkey below Baghdad on the Tigris River, and any other portions. But once we come to negotiate with regard to Koweit itself the matter is entirely different. The right hon. Baronet has given us a very satisfactory statement with regard to Koweit. I regret it was not given earlier. When the Foreign Secretary asks us whether there is anything which can be done to stop those measures which have been taken against us in that part of the world, I would reply that if he would occasionally treat this House with a little more candour, if he would make some open statement of the continuity of foreign policy when it is called for by those who care very deeply about foreign affairs (and who do not wish to get details of an embarrassing nature from the right hon. Gentleman, as he knows very well), as I have on one or two occasions and failed to get it, he would do a service to this country, by stopping the machinations of other foreign nations with regard to our diplomacy in the East. I remember very well when I made a speech last summer on the question of Crete I was met by the right hon. Gentleman opposite
    1342
    with criticisms, and it was with great reluctance he made any statement at all. What was the result of the statement he made? The result of the statement, which, if I may use the word with all courtesy, he was compelled to make by my speech in the House, was that in all the main newspapers in Europe it was said the right hon. Gentleman's speech had allayed anxiety in the East and largely conduced to a peaceful settlement of that very difficult question. I adduce that as a proof that, if occasionally when we call, as we have every right to do, for a statement of the continuity of foreign policy in this House, the right hon. Gentleman could meet us with a little more candour than he has in the past it would be an advantage. In conclusion, with regard to Koweit, I would ask the House to remember that when once we leave Turkish territory just below Bussora, Turkish claims do not hold good, and Turkish sovereignty can claim absolutely nothing. It has been independent territory and avowed as such in this House and in England for many a long year past; and the sooner that is understood by our friends the Turks, with whom I have the deepest sympathy, and for whose policy I have worked very hard for many a long year past as they know, the sooner shall we clear up the many difficulties that lie in the way of the Baghdad Railway. The sooner that is done, and it can only be done by the most firm attitude on our part, the sooner we shall have better relations with Germany, and not until then.
    Mr. JAMES HOPE: Last year we had no Foreign Office Vote put down at all, and no proper discussion on foreign affairs. To-day the discussion has been interrupted by other business, both in the afternoon and in the evening, and I would ask the right hon. Baronet to use his influence with the Prime Minister, so that the Foreign Office Vote shall be put down on the earliest possible Thursday.
    Sir E. GREY: I quite agree that the discussion has been very much interrupted. Of course, I cannot undertake to say when the Foreign Office Vote will be taken, but I understand that the general convenience of the House is consulted through the usual channel, and it will be so in this case. The fact that the discussion has been interrupted to-night will no doubt be taken into consideration.
    Mr. JAMES HOPE: Will the right hon. Baronet do his best?
    Question put, "That Item Class 2, Vote 5 (Foreign Office), be reduced by £100."
    The Committee divided: Ayes, 89; Noes, 232.

    Division No. 41.]

    AYES.

    [11.0 p.m.

    Archer-Shee, Major M.

    Foster, Philip staveley

    Pryce-Jones, Col. E. (M'tgom'y B'ghs.)

    Bagot, Lieut.-Colonel J.

    Gastreil, Major W. H.

    Remnant, James Farquharson

    Baird, J. L.

    Grant, J. A.

    Roileston, Sir John

    Balcarres, Lord

    Hamilton, Lord C. J. (Kensington, S.)

    Rutherford, W. (Liverpool, W. Derby)

    Banbury, Sir Frederick George

    Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)

    Salter, Arthur Clavell

    Banner, John S. Harmood-

    Hickman, Colonel Thomas E.

    Sanders, Robert A.

    Barlow, Montague (Salford, S.)

    Hills, J. W.

    Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

    Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)

    Hohler, G. F.

    Smith, Harold (Warrington)

    Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)

    Hope, James Fitzaian (Sheffield)

    Stanier, Beville

    Beckett, Hon. W. Gervase

    Hunt, Rowland

    Starkey, John R.

    Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)

    Ingleby, Holcombe

    Stewart, Gershom

    Benn, I. H. (Greenwich)

    Kebty-Fletcher, J. R.

    Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)

    Bennett-Goldney, Francis

    Kerry, Earl of

    S wilt, Rigby

    Bird, A.

    Knight, Capt. E. A

    Sykes, Alan John

    Bridgeman, W. Clive

    Lee, Arthur H.

    Thynne, Lord Alexander

    Burn, Colonel C. R.

    Lewisham, Viscount

    Touche, George Alexander

    Campion, W. R.

    Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)

    Tuillbardine, Marquess of

    Carlile, E. Hildred

    Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. A. (Hanover Sq.)

    Valentia, Viscount

    Cassel, Felix

    Mackinder, H. J.

    Walker, Col. William Hall

    Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.

    Malcolm, Ian

    Weigail, Capt. A. G.

    Clyde, J. Avon

    Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas

    Wheler, Granville C. H.

    Courthope, G. Loyd

    Morpeth, Viscount

    Wolmer, Viscount

    Dairymple, Viscount

    Mount, William Arthur

    Wood, John (Stalybridge)

    Dixon, C. H.

    Neville, Reginald J. N.

    Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-

    Du Cros, Arthur Philip

    Ormsby-Gore, Hon William

    Yate, Col. C. E. (Leics., Melton)

    Eyres-Monsell, B. M.

    Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

    Younger, George

    Faile, B. G.

    Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)

    Fell, Arthur

    Peel, Hon. W. R. W. (Taunton)

    Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

    Peto, Basil Edward

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Steel-Maitland and Mr. Lloyd.

    Fleming, Valentine

    Pole-Carew, Sir R. (Cornwall, Bodmin)

    Forster, Henry William

    Pollock, Ernest Murray

    NOES.

    Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour)

    Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

    Guiland, John William

    Acland, Francis Dyke

    Cowan, W. M.

    Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)

    Agnew, Sir George William

    Crumley, Patrick

    Hackett, J.

    Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbarton)

    Daiziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy)

    Haidane, Rt. Hon Richard B.

    Armitage, R.

    Davies, E. William (Elfion)

    Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)

    Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry

    Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)

    Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

    Atherley-Jones, Llewelyn A.

    Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

    Hardie, J. Keir

    Baker, H. T. (Accrington)

    Dawes, J. A.

    Harvey, A. G. C (Rochdale)

    Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)

    Deiany, William

    Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.)

    Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset)

    Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

    Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

    Barran, Rowland Hirst (Leeds, N.)

    Devlin, Joseph

    Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

    Barran, Sir J. (Hawick)

    Dewar, Sir J. A.

    Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

    Barry, Redmond John

    Dillon, John

    Hayden, John Patrick

    Barton, W.

    Doris, W.

    Hayward, Evan

    Beale, W. P.

    Duffy, William J.

    Hazleton, Richard (Galway, N.)

    Beck, Arthur Cecil

    Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)

    Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

    Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, S. Geo.)

    Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

    Higham, John Sharp

    Bentham, G. J.

    Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)

    Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.

    Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

    Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)

    Hudson, Walter

    Boland, John Plus

    Eiverston, H.

    Hughes, S. L.

    Booth, Frederick Handel

    Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)

    Isaacs, Sir Rufus Daniel

    Bowerman, C. W.

    Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)

    Johnson, W.

    Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)

    Essex, Richard Walter

    Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)

    Brace, William

    Essiemont, George Birnie

    Jones, W. S. Glyn- (T. H'mts., Stepney)

    Brady, P. J.

    Falconer, J.

    Jowett, F. W.

    Brigg, Sir John

    Farrell, James Patrick

    Joyce, Michael

    Brocklehurst, W. B.

    Fenwick, Charles

    Keating, M.

    Bryce, J. Annan

    Ffrench, Peter

    Kilbride, Denis

    Burns, Rt. Hon. John

    Field, William

    King, J. (Somerset, N.)

    Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, N.)

    Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward

    Lambert, George (Devon, Molton)

    Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney C. (Poplar)

    Flavin, Michael Joseph

    Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)

    Byies, William Pollard

    Furness, Stephen

    Lansbury, George

    Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood)

    Gelder, Sir W. A.

    Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

    Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)

    Gill, A H.

    Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'ri'nd., Cockerm'th)

    Chancellor, H. G.

    Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford

    Levy, Sir Maurice

    Chapple, Dr. W. A.

    Goldstone, Frank

    Lewis, John Herbert

    Clancy, John Joseph

    Gordon, J.

    Low, Sir F. (Norwich)

    Clough, William

    Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)

    Lyeil, Charles Henry

    Clynes, J. R.

    Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)

    Lynch, A. A.

    Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)

    Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

    Macdonald, J. Ramsa (Leicester)

    Condon, Thomas Joseph

    Guest, Major Hon. C. H. C. (Pembroke)

    MacGhee, Richard

    Corbett, A. Cameron

    Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.)

    Maciean, Donald

    Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

    Pickersgill, Edward Hare

    Summers, James Woolley

    MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

    Pollard, Sir George H.

    Sutton, John E.

    MacVeagh, Jeremiah

    Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.

    Taylor, John W. (Durham)

    M'Callum, John M.

    Power, Patrick Joseph

    Tennant, Harold John

    M'Laren, Walter S. B. (Ches., Crewe)

    Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)

    Thomas, James Henry (Derby)

    M'Micking, Major Gilbert

    Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)

    Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

    Mason, David M. (Coventry)

    Radford, G. H.

    Toulmin, George

    Masterman, C. F. G.

    Rattan, Peter Wilson

    Trevelyan, Charles Philips

    Mathias, Richard

    Reddy, M.

    Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander

    Meagher, Michael

    Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

    Wadsworth, John

    Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)

    Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)

    Walton, Sir Joseph

    Molloy, M.

    Rendail, Atheistan

    Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)

    Money, L. G. Chiozza

    Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

    Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)

    Montagu, Hon. E. S.

    Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)

    Wardie, George J.

    Mooney, J. J.

    Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradfora)

    Waring, V'alter

    Morrell, Philip

    Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

    Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay

    Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

    Robinson, Sidney

    Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)

    Munro, R.

    Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)

    Watt, Henry A.

    Murray, Captain Hon. A. C.

    Roche, John

    Webb, H.

    Nellson, Francis

    Roe, Sir Thomas

    White, Sir George (Norfolk)

    Nolan, Joseph

    Rose, Sir Charles Day

    White, Patrick (Meath, North)

    Norman, Sir Henry

    Rowlands, James

    Wiles, Thomas

    O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

    St. Maur, Harold

    Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

    O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

    Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)

    Williams, P. (Middlesbrough)

    O'Dowd, John

    Samuel, J. (Stockton)

    Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull, W.)

    Ogden, Fred

    Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

    Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)

    O'Grady, James

    Scanian, Thomas

    Wilson, J. W. (Worcestershire, N.)

    O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wick low, W.)

    Scott, A. M'Callum (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

    Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

    O'Kelly. James (Roscommon, N.)

    Seely, Col., Right Hon. J. E. B.

    Winfrey, Richard

    O'Neill. Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)

    Sheehy, David

    Wood, T. M'Kinnon (Glasgow)

    O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

    Sherwell, Arthur James

    Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)

    O'Sullivan, Timothy

    Shortt, Edward

    Young, W. (Perth, East)

    Palmer, Godfrey

    Simon, Sir John Alisebrook-

    Parker, James (Halifax)

    Smith, Albert (Lanes., Clitheroe)

    Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek)

    Smyth, Thomas F.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Master of Elibank and Mr. Illingworth.

    Pease, Rt Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)

    Soares, Ernest J.

    Phillips, John (Longford, S.)

    Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.)

    Question put, and agreed to.

    And, it being after Eleven of the clock, the Chairman proceeded, pursuant to Standing Order No. 15, to put forthwith the Question necessary to dispose of the Vote.
    Whereupon the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
    Resolution to be reported to-morrow; Committee to sit again to-morrow.

PROTECTION OF ANIMALS BILL.
Read a second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.
Mr. GULLANDmoved, "That this House do now adjourn."
Mr. DAVID MASON: With reference to the remarks made on the other side of the House and also on this side, may I ask whether the Government will not give extended time on the Report stage for the further discussion of the Vote?
The PRIME MINISTER: It is not the fault of the Government that more time was not given to the Vote to-night. First of all, there was a Debate on the writ for
1346
North Louth, and then there was a Debate on the Great Northern Railway Bill. I will consider what can be done in regard to the hon. Member's question.
Adjourned accordingly at Sixteen minutes after Eleven o'clock.

  Finance Act, 1909–10.
  Finance Act, 1909–10.
  Clerks to Surveyors.
  Clerks to Surveyors.
  Patent Office (Examiners).
  Patent Office (Examiners).
  Post Office Abstractors.
  Post Office Abstractors.
  Gardeners' and Labourers' Wages.
  Gardeners' and Labourers' Wages.
  Stock of Stamps.
  Stock of Stamps.
  Old Age Pensions (Ireland).
  Old Age Pensions (Ireland).
  Tax Collectors.
  Tax Collectors.
  University Education.
  University Education.
  Grants to University Colleges.
  Grants to University Colleges.
  Road Board.
  Road Board.
  Increment Value Duty.
  Increment Value Duty.
  Confidential Valuations.
  Confidential Valuations.
  Imperial Conference.
  Imperial Conference.
  Housing Schemes (Ireland).
  Housing Schemes (Ireland).
  School Inspectors, Ireland.
  School Inspectors, Ireland.
  Registration Agent, Strabane.
  Registration Agent, Strabane.
  Irish Financial Relations.
  Irish Financial Relations.
  Reinstatement Applications (Ireland).
  Reinstatement Applications (Ireland).
  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Land Purchase (Ireland).
  Kilmakilloge Harbour (County Kerry).
  Kilmakilloge Harbour (County Kerry).
  Pauper Children (Ireland) Act, 1902.
  Pauper Children (Ireland) Act, 1902.
  Evicted Tenants (County Cavan).
  Evicted Tenants (County Cavan).
  Bread (Ireland).
  Bread (Ireland).
  Artificer Engineers (Royal Navy).
  Artificer Engineers (Royal Navy).
  Fishermen at Beer (Target Practice).
  Fishermen at Beer (Target Practice).
  Army Commissions.
  Army Commissions.
  Cavalry Sword.
  Cavalry Sword.
  Army Service Corps Officers (Aldershot).
  Army Service Corps Officers (Aldershot).
  Territorial Forces (Separation Allowances).
  Territorial Forces (Separation Allowances).
  Army Expeditionary Force.
  Army Expeditionary Force.
  Army Meat Contract (Curragh).
  Army Meat Contract (Curragh).
  St. Patrick's Day.
  St. Patrick's Day.
  Forage Supply.
  Forage Supply.
  Yeomanry Adjutants' Pay.
  Yeomanry Adjutants' Pay.
  Territorial Force Instructors.
  Territorial Force Instructors.
  Bronzing Work (Home Office Regulations).
  Bronzing Work (Home Office Regulations).
  Employment in Bakehouses.
  Employment in Bakehouses.
  Transvaal Fruit.
  Transvaal Fruit.
  Mercantile Marine (Subsidies).
  Mercantile Marine (Subsidies).
  United States and Great Britain (Arbitration Treaty).
  United States and Great Britain (Arbitration Treaty).
  Dublin Labour Exchange.
  Dublin Labour Exchange.
  Temporary Superintending Engineers (Postal).
  Temporary Superintending Engineers (Postal).
  Investments (Post Office Savings Banks).
  Investments (Post Office Savings Banks).
  Postal Boy Messengers.
  Postal Boy Messengers.
  Agricultural Holdings Act (Arbitration).
  Agricultural Holdings Act (Arbitration).
  Farm Tenants (Security of Tenure).
  Farm Tenants (Security of Tenure).
Preamble
Several Lords—Took the Oath.
EARL OF CALEDON.
Petition of Eric James Alexander, Earl of Caledon, in the Peerage of Ireland, claiming a right to vote at the elections of Representative Peers for Ireland; read, and referred to the Lord Chancellor to consider and report thereupon to the House.
VISCOUNT CHETWYND.
Report made from the Lord Chancellor that the right of Godfrey John Boyle, Viscount Chetwynd, in the Peerage of Ireland, to vote at the elections of Representative Peers for Ireland, has been established to the satisfaction of the Lord Chancellor; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.

EARL OF LANESBOROUGH.
Report made from the Lord Chancellor that the right of Charles John Brinsley, Earl of Lanesborough, in the Peerage of Ireland, to vote at the elections of Representative Peers for Ireland, has been established to the satisfaction of the Lord Chancellor; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificate from the Examiners that the Standing Orders applicable to the following Bill have not been complied with:
London County Council (Tramways and improvements).
The same was ordered to lie on the Table.

ENFIELD GAS BILL. [H.L.]

  WINCHESTER CORPORATION (ELECTRIC SUPPLY) BILL. [H.L.]
  Report from the Committee of Selection that the Five Lords appointed a Select Committee on the London, Tilbury, and Southend Railway Bill [H.L.] and other Bills do form the Select Committee for the
  324
  consideration of the Enfield Gas Bill [H.L.] and the Winchester Corporation (Electric Supply) Bill [H.L.]; read, and agreed to: All petitions referred to the Committee, with leave to the Petitioners praying to be heard by Counsel against the Bills to be heard as desired, as also Counsel for the Bills.

LONDON, BRIGHTON AND SOUTH COAST RAILWAY BILL. [H.L.]
LONDON, BRIGHTON AND SOUTH COAST RAILWAY (STEAM VESSELS) BILL. [H.L.]
CITY OF LONDON (VARIOUS POWERS) BILL. [H.L.]
OYSTERMOUTH URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL. [H.L.],
HARROGATE CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
SIDMOUTH GAS AND ELECTRICITY BILL. [H.L.]
CHESTER WATER BILL. [H.L.]
THORNEY DRAINAGE BILL. [H.L.]
Report from the Committee of Selection, That the Marquess Camden be proposed to the House as a Member of the Select Committee in the place of the Lord Langford; read, and agreed to.

CHAPEL-EN-LE-FRITH, CHINLEY AND DISTRICT GAS BILL. [H.L.]
  WHALEY BRIDGE GAS BILL. [H.L.]
  The Order made on the 28th of February last appointing certain Lords the Select Committee to consider the Bills, discharged.
KINGSTON-UPON-HULL CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
Report of the Board of Trade respecting: Laid before the House pursuant to Order of the House of Monday last, and to be printed. (No. 29.)
PROFESSIONAL ACCOUNTANTS BILL. [H.L.]
A Bill to provide for the Registration of Professional Accountants in Great Britain and Ireland, and for other relative purposes—Was presented by the Earl of Chichester; read 1a, and to be printed. (No. 30.)

THE DECLARATION OF LONDON.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: My Lords, I rise to ask the Lord President of the Council whether he will lay on the Table of the House Papers showing the view of the Board of Admiralty on the effect which the establishment of an International Prize Court of Appeal and the Declaration of London would have on the conduct of a naval war by this country.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (VISCOUNT MORLEY OF BLACKBURN): My Lords, in reply to the noble Earl, I have to say that the opinions expressed by the Admiralty on this subject are not in a form in which their publication would be in the public interest. It would not be desirable—I think the noble Earl will agree with me—to make public any views as to the effect of the provisions of the Declaration of London on the conduct of naval operations. To do that would be equivalent to informing a. possible enemy of the manner in which the Admiralty might intend to use the powers of blockade or other means of attacking an enemy's commerce. In general terms I play say that the opinion of the Admiralty is that, in existing circumstances, the effect of the establishment of an International Court of Appeal and of the Declaration of London on this country as a belligerent in the conduct of naval operations would be small and inconsiderable.
LORD DESBOROUGH*LORD DESBOROUGH rose to call attention to the Declaration of London, and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I rise to call your Lordships' attention to a matter of the most vital importance to this country—namely, the new rules of naval warfare which have been drawn up under the Declaration of London. They affect us primarily as the dwellers in these Islands in a particular manner, but they affect the whole of our Dominions beyond the seas in a manner almost as vital. The Declaration of London has been considered, and adversely reported upon, by a large number of Chambers of Commerce, approaching thirty in number, and ten Shipping Associations, including the Chamber of Shipping of the United Kingdom, which is the representative Chamber of the Kingdom, besides Shipping Assurance and other bodies. The Colonies have vehemently protested their right to be heard, and Australasia has the
326
question down to be debated at the Colonial Conference. There is a widespread feeling of alarm in business, commercial, and shipping centres; but the replies where they have been given to the representatives of these bodies by the Foreign Office have been on the whole to the effect that those who made them did not understand the present state of the Law of Nations on the subject or what alterations the Declaration made in it. Well, my Lords, this must be due to some inherent vice in Chambers of Commerce and other such bodies, because not only have they tried their best to understand them, but in many instances have called into their counsels men of acknowledged repute in matters of International Law before they made their protests. I sincerely hope that they may now be enlightened on the many points which trouble them. It is a matter which the trader, the commercial man, the shipowner, the underwriter must clearly understand as it affects him so closely.
The Declaration of London is the direct outcome of the second Peace Conference, which met at the Hague on June 15, 1907, when forty-five States were represented by 156 delegates. At this Conference fourteen documents were passed, of which Great Britain has signed thirteen and ratified nine. The one not signed was the Convention setting up the International Prize Court. The Resolution proposing the establishment of this International Prize Court was moved by Baron Marschall von Bieberstein on behalf of the German Government, and its object was to create an international Jurisdiction to discuss the legality of captures in maritime war. This would be a High Court of Justice sitting as a Court of Appeal, while National Tribunals would deliberate in the first instance. This new Court of Appeal would practically supersede the British Prize Courts, which have always held such a high place in the estimation of nations for their independence, integrity, and justice, as, indeed, may be said for the other great maritime nations. It is to consist of fifteen Judges, nine to form a quorum: the Judges appointed by Germany, the United States of America, Austria-Hungary, France, Great Britain, Italy, Japan and Russia are always to be summoned, and Judges and Deputy Judges are to be appointed by Argentina, Columbia, Turkey, Paraguay, Bolivia, Roumania,

327
Persia, Panama, Costa Rica, Haiti, Guatemala, Brazil, China, Bulgaria, Montenegro, Nicaragua, Cuba, Honduras, Ecuador, Switzerland, Luxembourg and other maritime countries.
Although the Convention set up the Prize Court as mentioned, the rules according to which it was to decide were left very vague. In the Report it says—
"The new International Prize Court is called upon to make the law, and to take into account other principles than those to which are submitted the National Prize Court Jurisdiction, whose decision is attacked before the International Court."
The new Court was, in fact, to make the law, and the law was to be founded on some new and undefined principles. The Report also says—
"How is nationality, property, or domicile to be proved? Is it only by the ships papers or equally by other document produced? We intend to leave the Court full power of appreciation."
And again—
"Every liberty is to be left to the Court as to the appreciation of the various elements furnished to it to determine the conclusion. There is not here a legal system of proofs."
It was felt, however, on further consideration that a Court of this character could hardly be set up over the National Prize Courts of the various countries without some much more definite rules to guide them, and so, on February 27, 1908, a circular-letter was addressed to His Majesty's representatives at Berlin, Madrid, Paris. Rome, St. Petersburg, Tokyo, Vienna, Washington, and subsequently the Hague, proposing that a Conference should be held in London to determine what the new laws for the International Prize Court should be; and this Conference resulted in the Declaration of London which we are now considering.
I am far from wishing to decry or run down any attempts to settle international disputes by arbitration, or even to establish such Courts as an International Prize Court, but the Court must be competent and the rules should be fair. It must also be remembered that the International Prize Court and its rules are not in any sense designed for preventing war and all its horrors, as they only come into effect after war has unfortunately broken out, and practically form the rules and regulations under which that war is to be conducted. It is from this point of
328
view that I propose shortly to consider the provisions of the Declaration of London, and to formulate certain questions which I trust will be met in a manner calculated to remove the apprehension which undoubtedly exists. The importance of the whole subject as regards this country, dependent as it is on the sea for its food and its commerce, cannot be exaggerated. It concerns not only these islands but all our Dominions beyond the seas. The provisions of this Declaration affect our national and Imperial existence in the most vital manner. I believe it is the most important question before the country at the present time.
Now, my Lords, to proceed to the Declaration of London, which appears to me to be more important than the International Prize Court, important as that is. The International Prize Court does not come into operation till after the National' Prize Courts have adjudicated, and then only affects the individual who claims that his property has been wrongfully seized or destroyed. The harm to the nation will have been done; the individual owner of the ship and cargo may eventually receive compensation, but it is a question even then whether it will be worth his while to claim it. He will be appealing against the decision of a National Prize Court; at the International Prize Court he will be fighting a nation. He will have to engage counsel in a language to he determined by that International Prize Court; he will have to face a very large expenditure, perhaps even the expenses of a Commission of Inquiry; he can only, if successful, get the bare value of what he has lost, and from this various deductions are apparently to be made. It is doubtful whet her this appeal will be worth his while; it probably will not unless enormous sums are at stake.
But, as it appears to me this is not the important question. The important question is the establishment of these new rules contained in this document, the Declaration of London, which embody the new conditions of naval warfare. These do matter, and they matter most of all to us, because we depend on sea commerce for our national existence. There are certain points on which I hope we shall get definite information from His Majesty's Government—as the commercial and mercantile community is in great doubt about them, and these

329
doubts have not yet been removed—before we come to the Declaration itself. The first of these is whether the Declaration is considered to be binding on the signatory Powers whether the International Prize Court is set up or not. The preliminary provision of the Declaration states—
"The signatory Powers are agreed that the rules contained in the following chapters correspond in substance with the generally recognised principles of International Law."
That is a very definite statement to be committed to, and it is further enforced by Article 66, which says—
"The signatory Powers undertake to insure the mutual observance of the rules contained in the present Declaration in any war in which all the belligerents are parties thereto. They will, therefore, issue the necessary instructions to their authorities and to their armed forces, and will take such measures as may be required in order to insure that it will be applied by their Courts, and more particularly by their Prize Courts."
The meaning of this seems pretty plain—namely, that if this Declaration is ratified we in these Islands, and our Colonies who have not as yet been consulted, are definitely committed to all the provisions of the Declaration, which it is stated are to be taken as a whole. I know that great authorities take a different view. For instance, Mr. Gibson Bowles, one of the few people in this country who have mastered the 2,000 pages of the French Blue Book relating to this matter, takes the view that the establishment of the Prize Court is the King Pin of the situation, and that if the Prize Court is not set up the Declaration falls to the ground. I hope that His Majesty's Government will make this point quite clear.
There is another question I should like to ask before briefly discussing a few points of the Declaration, and it is one on which there has been a good deal of controversy among international lawyers in the public Press. It is this: Is the Report of Mr. Renault, which is a running commentary on each Article of the Declaration, to be taken as authoritative? From some points of view it seems to make the Declaration better; from other points of view it seems to make it worse; while yet, again, from others it seems difficult to reconcile it with the Declaration at all. The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs has stated that—
"The International Prize Court, if set up, will be bound to construe the text in conformity with the terms of the Report."
330
Sir Thomas Barclay, at the Summer Conference of the International Law Association, said—
"I have never heard of any such suggestion being made by a practical lawyer";
and Professor Holland has stated that—
"Such a Report as that which accompanies the Declaration of London has no claim to the sort of interpretative authority which has been attributed to it, nor is it desirable that the requisite steps should be taken to give it that authority. It would be calamitous should a practice be introduced of attempting to cure the imperfect expression of a Treaty by tacking on to it an equally authoritative reasoned commentary."
And he goes on to say—
"The fact is that the vitally important questions of theory and practice raised by the Convention and Declaration need calmer and better instructed discussion than they have yet received. Ought they not to be referred to a Royal Commission, on which should be placed representatives of the Navy arid merchant service, of the corn trade, and of the Colonies, together with international lawyers, in touch with the views of their Continental colleagues?"
Be that as it may, it is absolutely impossible to gauge the effects of this new Declaration unless one knows whether the Report in the shape of a running commentary by M. Renault is authoritative or not; and, if it is authoritative, perhaps the suggestion of Professor Westlake, Mr. Cohen, and others, that it should be ratified by all the Powers concerned, should be carried out. A categorical answer from the Government on this point appears to be absolutely necessary.
As regards the Declaration itself, I propose to confine my remarks to three main points raised by the various Chambers of Commerce in their protests to the Foreign Office. These protests have been answered at some length by the Foreign Office, which has taken up the view that the Chambers did not understand international law or the Law of Nations as now very generally interpreted, and also that they had misconceived the alterations introduced into that generally accepted law by this new Code. That, of course, may be so, and I only hope that this discussion may do something to clear away these misconceptions. In these Islands we cannot afford to have misconceptions on sea, laws which affect our national existence. The merchants, traders, shipowners, corndealers, and underwriters, nay even the people at large, must understand. These matters affect the business man;

331
they are not religious mysteries, or murmured incantations of priests behind a veil. The Declaration, when ratified, is to hold good for twelve years; none of the signatory Powers can denounce it within that time. I am no enemy of International Agreements, of Arbitration Courts, or of proposals for limiting armaments, and I am as alive to the horrors of war as any member of this Chamber; but International Agreements should be fair and not one-sided, otherwise they may provoke the very war which all the friends of peace wish to avoid. This Declaration and the International Prize Court have nothing to do with peace; they only take effect when war has actually broken out.
My Lords, the Declaration of London is divided into nine chapters, and concludes with some final provisions; there are seventy-one Articles altogether. The chapters dealing with blockade in time of war, with unneutral service, with the transfer of the neutral flag, enemy character, convoy, resistance to search, and compensation, I propose to leave to others who are more capable of pointing out where they are injurious, if they are injurious, to the interests of this country. I shall confine my criticisms to three main points—first, the effect of the Declaration in exposing to capture or deliberate destruction of food supplies borne to this country in time of war in neutral vessels; secondly, the admission of the principle of destruction of neutral prizes; and, thirdly, the absence of any provision in the Declaration for preventing the conversion of merchant vessels into commerce destroyers on the high seas.
As regards the first point, the question of food supplies, it should be observed that there are three divisions of articles made by the Declaration. The first is absolute contraband, the second conditional contraband, and the third the free list. Articles exclusively used for war are absolute contraband. The free list contains articles which may not be declared contraband of war, and which, with the notable exception of cotton and hemp, never have been declared contraband of war. But what concerns us most is the list of articles susceptible of use in war as well as for purposes of peace, which may, without notice, be treated as contraband of war under the name of "conditional contra-
332
band." The list of conditional contraband is given in Article 24 of the Declaration, and is as follows—(1) foodstuffs; (2) forage and grain suitable for feeding animals; (3) clothing, fabrics for clothing, and boots and shoes suitable for use in war; (4) gold and silver in coin or bullion and paper money; (5) vehicles of all kinds available for use in war, and their component parts; (6) vessels, craft and boats of all kinds, floating docks, parts of docks and their component parts; (7) railway material both fixed and rolling stock, and material for telegraphs, wireless telegraphs, and telephones;(8) balloons and flying machines, and their distinctive component parts, together with accessories and articles recognisable as intended for use in connection with balloons and flying machines; (9) fuel, lubricants; (10) powder and explosives not specially prepared for use in war; (11) barbed wire and implements for fixing and cutting the same; (12) horseshoes and shoeing materials; (13) harness and saddlery; (14) field glasses, telescopes, chronometers, and all kinds of nautical instruments. This list can, under Article 25, be added to by a declaration.
My Lords, this list is a comprehensive one, but I suppose the first article—foodstuffs—is to us living in Islands which import food at the appalling rate of £484 a minute is the most important, and we must see what the Declaration has to say on the subject of the importation of conditional contraband. Under Article 34 of the Declaration neutral ships are liable to, capture, and under certain circumstances, to destruction if the goods are consigned to enemy authorities, or to a contractor established in the enemy country, who as a matter of common knowledge supplies articles of this kind to the enemy. A similar presumption arises if the goods are consigned to a fortified place belonging to the enemy, or other place "serving as a base for the armed forces of the enemy." This Article sets forth where neutral ships may not convey conditional contraband to. It is the most disputed Article in the Declaration as regards its precise meaning. "Enemy authorities," "contractor," "place serving as a base for the armed forces of the enemy," require the most careful definition. It has been frequently pointed out that "contractor" is a very limited translation of the authentic word, which is commercant, or trader, and I

333
suppose there are few great traders in this country who are absolutely free from the imputation of supplying the authorities with articles of conditional contraband. "Enemy" is also ambiguous in this Article. But the sentence which has caused the most, alarm is "other place serving as a base for the armed forces of the enemy." These Islands are small, and there is no port suitable for the reception of grain ships which could not serve as a base for our armed forces, or winch, as a matter of fact, does not do so. The commentary, or report, of M. Renault, whether authoritative or not, seems to make the matter worse. He says it may be a fortified place belonging to the enemy, or a place used as a base whether of operations "or of supply," for the armed forces of the enemy. This seems to adopt the German view, for Articles 34, 35, and 49 are taken almost in their entirety from the German report laid before the London Conference.
The Chambers of Commerce and others representing the trading and shipping interests of this country are much alarmed by these Articles. It appears to them that foodstuffs and other articles of conditional contraband would, when shipped to any port in the United Kingdom, be liable to capture, and under Article 49 the neutral vessels carrying them would be liable to be sunk. They would be grateful if the Government would name any ports in this country which they consider at the present time as above suspicion—any ports to which, if this country were at war, neutral vessels could convey foodstuffs and the other articles of conditional contraband. The Chamber of Commerce of Glasgow asked tile Foreign Office whether Glasgow would be considered a free port, but the answer, put shortly, was that the question would have to be decided by the International Prize Court sitting at the Hague probably long after the war was over. The same uncertainty would also exist when this country was a neutral. I am not sure indeed, that under Article 34 it would not be the duty of a hostile commander to capture any neutral vessels conveying conditional contraband to any port in this country. The best and safest manner to wage warfare on this country is to cut off her supplies, especially of food, and the sinking of neutral vessels carrying foodstuffs to this country would inevitably cause a serious rise in prices of food and freight and probably create a panic. And,
334
indeed, he would run no great risks in comparison with the objects to be secured. The owner of the cargo and ship would have the onus put upon him of proving before the International Prize Court that the port for which he was destined could not serve as a basis of supply for the armed forces of the enemy, and a negative is very difficult to prove.
I am well aware that the supporters of the Declaration argue, with regard to foodstuffs, that this country would be no worse off under the Declaration than it is as matters stand now. They maintain that food can be declared contraband at the present time. But that is not so. As the Right Hon. James Bryce stated in the House of Commons on August 11, 1904—
"Food, by the general consent of nations, was not contraband of war, unless it is clearly proved to be intended for military or naval purposes. In 1885 a demand was made by the French Government to treat rice as contraband of war. Lord Granville protested in a most, energetic way, and stated that he would not recognise the decision of French Prize Courts which treated rice under that category, anti in point of fact rice never was treated as contraband of war."
It may also be noted that, as regards this particular instance, in the French Chamber it was stated that rice was made contraband not as the food of the people, but because it was used as tribute and as payment for the Chinese soldiers. Many more quotations could be given against the thesis that the food of the people can be declared contraband of war.
The worst of Article 34 is that while good excuse is given for foodstuffs coming to this country in neutral vessels in time of war being seized and even destroyed, Article 35 states that conditional contraband is not liable to capture when it is to be discharged in an intervening neutral port. That is to say, if we were to be at war with a Continental Power or Powers neutral vessels carrying conditional contraband, which includes all the articles I have already enumerated, could be, as I understand it, addressed straight to their belligerent forces, but we could not interfere with it as long as it was to be discharged at a neutral intervening port. Our cruisers might meet them, but they could only wish them godspeed. These two Articles taken together are grossly unfair to us as an Island Power. We have no neutral ports to draw these supplies from overland. All

335
our ports would be suspect. It is said, indeed, that neutral vessels could take our food supplies to France if France were a neutral, which is perhaps improbable. But grain comes over now in big ships. There are no facilities for storing and transhipping large quantities of grain in the northern French ports, and Antwerp and Rotterdam, where there are facilities, might not be geographically very safe points for this operation, which in any case must largely increase the cost of the commodity. Articles 34 and 35 imperil our food supplies and other articles of conditional contraband, while they secure them for possible Continental enemies when carried in neutral ships. It is impossible for the captain of a neutral vessel carrying foodstuffs to any port in England to satisfy the commander of a hostile cruiser as to the destination of his cargo. For one thing, he does not know. Under modern conditions cargoes of grain change hands on the high seas, and it is impossible to prove that their destination is what is termed innocent. The hostile commander will in that case either capture or perhaps sink the ship, and leave the talking to be done afterwards at the International Prize Court.
Now, my Lords, I come to the second point in my criticism, the admission of the principle of destruction of neutral prizes which is contained in Article 49. This is also one of the points submitted by the German representatives and agreed to in the Declaration. Article 48 says—
"A neutral vessel which has been captured may not be destroyed by the captor; she must be taken into such a port as is proper for the determination there of all questions concerning the validity of the capture."
That is quite right and in accordance with the hitherto accepted Law of Nations, and is fully borne out by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in his letter to Sir Edward Fry at the Hague Conference, in which he said—
"As regards the sinking of neutral prizes, which gave rise to so much feeling in this country during the Russo-Japanese War, Great Britain has always maintained that the right to destroy is confined to enemy vessels only, and this view is favoured by other Powers. Concerning the right to destroy captured neutral vessels, the view hitherto taken by the greater naval Powers has been that, in the event of it being impossible to bring in a vessel for adjudication, she must be released. You should urge the maintenance of the doctrine upon this subject which British Prize Courts have for at least two hundred years held to be the Law."
336
But all that goes by the board in the next Article, No. 49, which says—
"As an exception a neutral vessel which has been captured by a belligerent warship, and which would be liable to condemnation, may be y destroyed if the observance of Article 48 Would involve danger to the safety of the warship or to the success of the operations in which she is engaged at the time."
Thus Article 48 says you may not sink neutral vessels, while Article 49 says you may if you like. The commander of the warship is the judge on the spot as to whether the neutral vessel is carrying contraband, and the operations in which he is engaged is commerce destroying, and he would not be doing his duty to his country if lie allowed anything to interfere with the success of these operations, and so he is bound to take full advantage of Article 49. The Declaration allows this innovation on the practice of 200 years; the signatory Powers cannot protest; the only appeal is to the International Prize Court which I have already alluded to. Before the Declaration the neutral Power would have protested energetically if her ships had been sunk, but now she must wait for the individuals who have suffered to prove a negative in an undetermined language in the International Prize Court. If we were at war and the United States were neutral much of our grain from North America would come here in United States ships. Under Articles 34 and 49 these ships may be sunk, and I do not see how the United States, if she ratifies this Treaty, can protest, and the same remark applies to the other signatory Powers. In this respect, instead of being better off under this Declaration as the Under-Secretary of State avers, we are a great deal worse off than we were before.
The last of the three points to which desire to call attention is the absence of any provision in the Declaration for preventing the conversion of merchant vessels into commerce destroyers on the high seas. This is a most vital consideration as regards this country, which owns fifty per cent. of the sea carrying trade of the world. The first Article of the Treaty of Paris of 1856 is: "Privateering is and remains abolished"; but attempts are being made to revive it in a worse form than has ever been experienced. The matter cannot be put plainer than it is by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs ill his instructions to our representative. On the eve of the Conference he wrote—

337
"Apart from the important question of principle involved, there are two practical considerations which have chiefly weighed with His Majesty's Government in refusing to recognise the right to convert merchant vessels into ships of war on the high seas. One is the facility which such a right would give to the captain of a merchant vessel qualified to act as a war-ship, to seize enemy or neutral ships without wanting. The other is that enemy vessels under the mercantile flag, but suitable fur conversion, would be able, as merchantmen, to claim and obtain in neutral ports all the hospitality and privileges which would, under the accepted rules of naval warfare, be denied to them if they were warships. Availing herself of these advantages, such a vessel, found in distant waters after the outbreak of hostilities, would be enabled to pass from one neutral port to another until she reached the particular point in her voyage Where she might most conveniently be converted into a commerce destroyer."
Surely this is a very grave omission in the new Code of sea warfare. The matter has been left undetermined. Germany, France, and Russia were in favour of conversion on the high seas, and the United States, Great Britain, Japan, Italy, Austria, Holland, and Spain decided against it. Is the International Prize Court to decide for or against In the Russo-Japanese war this country protested against the Russian Volunteer Fleet coming as unarmed ships through the Dardanelles and acting as commerce destroyers, and Lord Lansdowne's protest was at that time upheld. Although we own, roughly speaking, one-half of the sea trade of the world our ocean highways are very inadequately policed. I believe that from Vancouver to Cape Horn we have no cruisers capable of defending it if attacked by swift converted liners. Our twenty-seven cruisers free for that purpose are quite inadequate in the other parts of the world, and we should want an enormous addition to our commerce protectors if this right of conversion on the high seas is to be permitted.
My Lords, I have tried, very briefly, to point out the reasons why, in the opinion as expressed by large sections of our business community, the Declaration of London should not be ratified. Although I am most strongly in favour of International Agreements which have as their end the settlement of disputes by arbitration and not by war, yet I believe that this Declaration is so grossly unfair that it will rather invite war against this country than prevent it. By the conversion at sea of peaceful vessels into commerce destroyers without notice on the high seas, by the sanction of the destruction of
338
neutral prizes, and by Articles 33 and 34 which imperil our food supplies in neutral ships, we are exposing ourselves to new and most grave dangers. The Declaration of London constitutes the greatest peril to us as an Island Power, and I trust it will never come into operation.
I should like to press for an answer to the three questions I have put. Is the Declaration binding, if signed, on the signatory Powers, supposing the International Prize Court is not set up? Is the commentary of M. Renault to be considered as an authoritative interpretation of the Declaration? And will the Government name the ports in this country to which neutral vessels carrying foodstuffs and other conditional contraband would have free access? In conclusion, I may say that on the whole the concluding paragraph of the Declaration is the one with which I am in most accord—namely, "Done at London," for that is where we have been done, and on February 26, 1909.
My noble friend Lord Lamington, who has a Motion on the Paper to refer this matter to a Royal Commission, is unfortunately prevented by indisposition from being in his place, and therefore on his behalf, if it is consonant with the rules of the House, I should like to move the Motion.
Moved to resolve, That, in the opinion of this House, it is desirable that a Royal Commission be appointed to report on the advisability of this country agreeing to the terms of the Declaration of London.—(Lord Desborough.)
THE EARL OF DESART: My Lords, I think I am entitled to ask this evening for a special measure of that indulgence which your Lordships always so generously and freely accord to a member of this House who addresses you for the first time, because in my first essay in political and Parliamentary speech I have to deal with a question of great complexity and difficulty, and one which has been the subject of much criticism. In putting before your Lordships my views, which I feel strongly and honestly, I wish to say that I do not speak in any sense for the Government. The noble Lord who has just sat down will, I am sure, not think me discourteous if I do not immediately touch on the particular questions he has

339
raised, though I shall have to deal with them later in a different order from that in which he has placed them before the House.
My position is not quite an ordinary one. I am interested more than most people in this Declaration, because I had the honour, under the instructions and authority of His Majesty's Government, of presiding as British Plenipotentiary at the Conference of London which drew up the Articles of the Declaration, and at the conclusion of the discussions I had the satisfaction of knowing that the result was approved by His Majesty's Government. I have been told, though I do not think it matters much, that personal attacks have been made on the actual delegates. I am quite sure the noble Lords on both Front Benches will agree that I need not concern myself with these attacks, because it is well established that when a public servant is employed to act by his political superiors blame or approval for him is to come from them and the responsibility is theirs if they adopt his conclusions and act upon them. I only say that because of my colleagues who worked loyally with me in pursuance of the instructions they received, and who, I think, ought not to be subject to comment of that character.
I myself have carefully abstained from taking any part in the discussions that have raged round this document and round the conditions under which the International Prize Court was proposed to be established. I have carefully abstained from newspaper correspondence and from attending gatherings to which I have been invited at which the subject was discussed, but I hope I am not doing anything wrong in addressing your Lordships to-night. I am no longer an official, and with the knowledge I necessarily have of how the conclusions were reached I think it is almost a duty to afford such explanations as I can make, by going through the Declaration, avoiding as far as possible a controversial tone, and merely commenting on what seems to me to be the effect of the various provisions embodied in the Declaration. The difficulty I have found in considering what I should say to-night lies in the great mass of the material, and in the consciousness that the subject cannot be familiar to more than a small number of your
340
Lordships, and, indeed, the knowledge of it is not easily to be acquired.
We who have been engaged ill this task, not merely at the time of the Declaration but long before it, have endeavoured to consider the conditions under which naval warfare would now be waged, how they would operate to the advantage or disadvantage of this country, and, lawyers though some of us were, to try and draw practical conclusions as to the results both of the existing condition of things and of the provisions that will be found in the Declaration. I had the advantage of being assisted in those labours by the then Director of Naval Intelligence, Rear-Admiral Slade, now Commander-in-Chief in the East Indies. and by the Secretary to the Imperial Council of Defence, both naval officers of large experience who had studied this subject for many years, and to whom I can never sufficiently express my indebtedness. My colleagues of the Foreign Office were also familiar with the conditions, and they afforded me equally valuable assistance. We took instructions from time to time on points that arose, and we had, I believe, in all the more difficult and crucial questions the direct authority of the representatives of the Government in the course we adopted at those moments.
The outcome was this Declaration; and I would like, before I embark upon it, to say a few words about the light in which I think it ought to be considered. You cannot, it seems to me, take the Declaration standing by itself and say, "That is good; that is bad; and as there is something bad in it we won't have it." What you have to do is to try to see how the existing conditions really work out in practice, to see what they really are, to see how far the rules—and it is not very far that rules exist at all on many points—would operate in time of war ill regard to the interests of this country, whether as belligerents or neutrals, and, finally, how the Declaration itself would work out by comparison. That is, I think, the only standpoint you can take in order to judge whether, first, the thing is in itself an advance in international law, and, most important of all, whether it does injure our country as belligerent or neutral. There can be no question that, whatever advantage it might be in some cases to us as neutrals as regards our trade, if in

341
order to gain that advantage we had to make any sacrifice of any practicable belligerent right we now possess and can exercise, the neutral interest must go. There in no doubt, I think, about that.
When I suggest that the provisions of the Declaration must he compared with the existing state of things I do not think that we can reasonably go back to the great wars of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, because the conditions not only of trade but in all ways are totally different owing to the Declaration of Paris. Whether that Declaration was wisely adopted by this country or not is a matter on which different people may have different opinions. Mr. Bowles, to whom the noble Lord referred, has strong views on that matter. I do not agree with him on many things, but on that point I very largely agree with him. I do not, however, see how it is possible to contemplate that we could go back upon it. Practically every nation in the world of any importance has accepted it. I know that the United States is said to be an exception; but it is not really an exception at all. The reason it was not accepted by the United States at the time was because of their objection to privateering being forbidden. They had no objection to the other rules; and since that time, being no longer dependent on their mercantile population and their mercantile ships to act for them in time of war, they have adopted it in their recent war with Spain. It is impossible to suppose that any Plenipotentiary of the United States could have signed and agreed to the document under consideration without accepting the Declaration of Paris.
This question has called forth a great deal of attention in the newspapers, and some writers seem to think that we have given up our right to capture the enemy's ships. That is not so. The right to capture the enemy's ships has not been touched by anything, and it is one of our most valuable weapons of war, because so long as we have the command of the sea we can practically after a short time exclude the enemy's merchant flag from the sea altogether. It is a weapon of great pressure on some countries, and it an important factor for us in a naval war. I am not quite sure how you could have avoided the criticisms that have b en made by the noble Lord of the constitution of the Court. It is better to
342
have an appeal from an enemy's Prize Court than to depend on diplomatic representation when you have been wronged. It must be of advantage to a neutral to go to a Court which is more impartial than the belligerents' Prize Court, the only alternative.
The noble Lord referred to the independence of Prize Courts. That is quite true about our Prize Courts and those of the United States, but it is not really true of foreign Prize Courts. A great number of them act, quite properly under their system, according to rules laid down by the Executive very often at the beginning of the war for that war. Therefore in a sense you might be at a disadvantage as a belligerent, because, supposing in many instances our rules were more lenient to a neutral than rules laid down by an enemy, we should in some cases release prizes that we had taken, whereas the enemy's Court would condemn prizes they had taken in precisely the same circumstances. Therefore this is, at any rate, a more impartial tribunal than you would get in the enemy's Prize Court. As to the constitution there is always a majority of the great Powers, and I do not accept the idea, if we do succeed in establishing rules that ought to be administered by an International Court, that those rules would, in the face of all Europe, be misapplied. It would be a great responsibility. It is, of course, a matter of opinion, but I do not think those laws would be misapplied. If they were, I think the feelings of neutrals would be very strong, and I cannot help thinking that, as the majority of the judges would be representatives of neutral nations, there really is not much peril of their going wrong in that direction. As probably those of your Lordships who have read the International Prize Court Convention are aware, the cases subject to appeal are very limited.
When the Convention was agreed to by the representatives of the Powers at The Hague and transmitted here it was felt that it was impossible that it should be ratified by this country until some rules were made which it should administer. It was left incomplete in the Convention through the absolute impossibility of going any further in the time at the disposal of the representatives. As it stood they were to apply rules of international law, and,

343
where they failed, the principles of justice and equity; but, left thus vague, it was not a tribunal we could possibly approach. The result was that Sir E. Grey invited the Great European Powers. the United States, and Japan to a Conference, taking certain specific points which they had to discuss, with a view, if possible, of framing rules for the guidance of the Court. The Conference met and formulated the Declaration of London, annexing to it an explanatory report, which has been the subject of a good deal of comment by my noble friend. I think it is important to know whether it is an authoritative document which will guide Prize Courts in their decisions. It is not altogether a question of law; to a large extent it is a question of fact; and when we stated in our report that we thought it was a document that would be so treated by the International Prize Courts on the Continent we thought that we were speaking in accordance with fact. I still think so.
Naturally I have been impressed by the correspondence I have read in the newspapers between Professor Holland and Professor Westlake, who take different views on the subject. They are men of the greatest eminence, and men to whose views I should defer if I could. But it has struck me that all the letters in the newspapers were rather based on what I would call the English reasoning, the view taken in English Courts of documents that might purport to be explanatory but were not parts of the actual documents under consideration. What is important is not what are the views our Courts would adopt of it but what view other Prize Courts would take of it, and the majority of those would be Continental Courts, and, generally speaking, would adopt the Continental system, which I think Japan also adopts. I ventured, in these circumstances, to communicate with a friend of mine—I am not, unfortunately, at liberty to mention his name, but he holds a very high position among International lawyers and is a gentleman whose name would carry weight—and I asked hint to let me know what his opinion was on the subject. I will read to your Lordships a translation—he is a French lawyer—of what he wrote to me—
"In my opinion there is no doubt that the Report which accompanies the Declaration of London will be considered by Continental Prize Courts as the official commentary of the Declaration
344
itself. The circumstances in which the Report was presented show that it must (ought to) be so. Not only was the Report unanimously agreed by the drafting Committee on which all the signatory Powers were represented, but it was also submitted to the Conference itself in full session and by it formally accepted. The signatories have adopted the Articles of the Declaration as interpreted by the Report and with the meaning given them thereby. It constitutes a whole, the parts of which cannot be separated without a breach of the agreement which was attached. As is expressly stated, the Report was not made to satisfy the friendly curiosity of international lawyers but to serve as a guide for the administrative, military, and judicial authorities who might have to apply its provisions. I do not see how that which was in the minds of all could have been more clearly expressed. There is nothing in common between such a Report, the work of the whole Conference, and the preliminary explanations (or preamble) which might precede an ordinary law, to which the Courts might give the force which they thought right. I do not wish to touch on delicate ground, but it seems to me that it was not a case of endeavouring to provide an interpretation in accordance with the practice of English Courts. It does not relate to an Act of Parliament, but to an International Convention which should be taken in the sense in which it was understood by the signatories; and, as I have explained above, the intention of the signatories to adopt it as an approved commentary is beyond question. It is the strict duty of all the authorities who have to apply the Convention to conform to it."
That is the opinion of an eminent man, and his view I myself believe represents what would be the ordinary practice of the International Court. I think the Prize Courts on the Continent would treat it almost or quite as having Conventional force.
The Powers were, before the meeting of the Conference, invited to submit memoranda or statements of their views on the rules and the questions raised for discussion. They did so, and, while there was a certain unity of principle to be traced running through the various memoranda the divergences in regard to practice, or supposed practice, were very serious indeed. I confess that at that time I had very little hope of any issue coming from our meeting. It still seems to me very advantageous to neutrals that, if it could possibly be attained with equity and justice, they should be able to know as nearly as might be what they could do at the outbreak of war, what they could carry, and what perils they might avoid. From the belligerents' point of view I am disposed to think that rules are also, if they can be reached and if they are proper rules, a great advantage, because if a belligerent acts in accordance with such

345
rules a neutral whose interests he may affect can have no grievance or reason for threatening war or making war with the belligerent of whose conduct he complains except in extreme cases of abuse of powers. The risk of war has been sometimes incurred through the incautious act of a naval officer. If he can have any clear rules for his guidance as to dealing with neutrals it is to his advantage, because it lessens the risk of increasing the area of war. I regret very much that the noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition is not here to-night, because lie could speak with great force and authority on this point. Our experience during the Russo-Japanese war very strongly illustrates that point. There were cases then in which we certainly thought the action taken by Russia was outside the legitimate and proper exercise of her powers. We remonstrated, in some cases successfully and in others not. But her treatment of neutral ships was extremely instructive as to the position in which we stand now in a naval war, whether as neutrals or belligerents.
There is another aspect of the matter which should not be lost sight of in considering this question as a whole, and that is whether, even if we should wish to do so, we could now, as we could at the end of the eighteenth and beginning of the nineteenth centuries, enforce any views which we held against the rest of the world. Your Lordships will remember that at that time outside the belligerents there were not any very strong naval Powers and we had hardly any powerful neutrals to consider, and there were moments during those long wars when we certainly did not consider neutrals. The danger of that was illustrated when we were asserting our belligerent; rights against neutrals to the utmost in 1812. There was one neutral—the United States of America—which was provoked into a war, one on which we at least can look back with no satisfaction, and which produced distrust which is only now dying and in many parts of the United States of America is not dead. But if there was one neutral then who was of importance to us there are many now; and I do not think, even if we desired it, which I am sure we should not, we could now play the part of Athanasius contra mundum.
I owe your Lordships an apology for speaking at such length before actually coming to the provisions of the Declaration,
346
but this is a matter which cannot be very well known to all your Lordships and therefore I thought some little preliminary history, if not very valuable, would at least to some extent illustrate what followed. I should like to say that I am in no sense a spokesman for the Government. I do not know what they are going to say. But I am conscientiously and honestly a supporter of the ratification of the Declaration. I believe we shall benefit by it largely as neutrals, and I believe we shall not sacrifice one single belligerent right. In giving my reasons for that view I will confine myself to those points which have been mainly the subject of criticism—namely, those dealing with blockade, contraband, the sinking of neutral prizes, and the absence from the Declaration of any provision as to the conversion of merchant ships at sea. At the Hague Conference Sir Edward Fry, a man who does not speak lightly, said—
"The International law of to-day is hardly anything but a chaos of opinions, often contradictory, and decisions of national Courts based on national laws."
With regard to blockade, I read in one newspaper that we were giving everything away. I am going to suggest to your Lordships that we have given away nothing, but that we have gained something. Nearly all the rules as to blockade are really practically in accordance with our own law. Looking to history, to the limitation of our theoretical rule and its working in practice, as well as to the wide limits which may be included in the "area of operations of the war-ships detailed to render the blockade effective," the result is that Clause 17 in effect means, if not all that might be covered by the old principle, all that it was found in practice could be effectually put in force there under, and in this respect Great Britain has in no sense weakened her effective power of blockade, while she has obtained almost complete acceptance of her principles, and complete abandonment of the French rule of notification and of the Continental theory of definite lines of blockade.
It has been said that in accepting the proposal that ships should only be captured for breach of blockade inside the area of operations of the blockading squadron we have made a material and important concession. That I deny. Under our existing rules a ship would not be condemned if

347
she had an alternative destination and though she might have started for the blockaded port had abandoned the intention of going there. Under modern conditions she would get orders at the last moment by telegraph. She would never commit herself to the intention to break blockade in the earliest stage of her voyage. There are eighty-eight cases in the English books of condemnation; Of these eighty-eight cases there was not one single one in which the ship was not condemned except under conditions in which I contend she would inevitably have been condemned under the provisions of the Declaration. I should qualify that by saying there were four eases, and four only, in which the exact locality of capture was not certain. Therefore, through all these long wars we never condemned a ship for breach of blockade unless she was close to the blockaded port or coast. It seems to me that we have secured under the Declaration exactly what we want. We could not accept the mileage limitation suggested by some of the Powers because the conditions of blockade vary. The only condition of a blockade is that it must be effective, and the only test of the area is whether it makes an effective blockade. The Report is, of course, of great value as illustrating that, but personally I submit that under the Declaration—Report or no Report—it is quite clear that the area is a perfectly loose term only limited by what is necessary for the effectiveness of the blockade, and a naval officer would not make a larger area than he wanted because he would require more ships. His object would be to blockade with the least force necessary to make it efficient.
I do not say much about egress, because I do not think it is a very important point. As a matter of fact, I believe there are only one or two cases of egress in our books at all; but nobody would detach a man-of-war for the purpose of intercepting a neutral ship. if she was not doing anything to injure us. I would make one general observation about blockade which might induce your Lordships to think I need not have dwelt upon these considerations so much. The observation I desire to make is that a ship here or there is not of much importance. In a blockade now, the principal object will be to bring economic pressure to bear on your enemy and prevent ordinary trade going to his own ports, and one or two ships coming
348
in or out would make little difference. That would be an instrument of very large economic pressure indeed, because I am told that land transport is something like ten times as expensive as sea transport and that would bear very hardly on those traders who are mainly accustomed to bring goods in by sea. That view of the matter was illustrated by the Japanese War, in which the fleet captured some junks which were carrying stray cargo and despatches, but there was no importance in those captures.
Now I come to the question of Contraband. I will not say it is the most important, but it touches so many matters—such as the destruction of neutral property—that it becomes really the central feature of the Declaration. The noble Lord, Lord Desborough, quoted, quite properly, a number of commercial associations that feel very apprehensive about the adoption of the Declaration. I should like, if I may, to read a statement made by the chairman of the Liverpool Steamship Owners' Association. He states, and I think it probably would be accepted by the noble Lord himself, that—
"Neutral traders feel more and more the want of a definite international Code stating with exactness their rights and liabilities in the presence of naval warfare, and they have suffered more and more from the want of some tribunal more impartial than the Prize Courts of their captors to decide the questions that must arise in every naval war between the neutral traders and the belligerents."
Before I proceed with contraband, I should like to make a few general observations on the question of food supply. It will be admitted that our food supply is only safe in time of war if we can protect our own ships. if we cannot do that, we shall not be sufficiently supplied by neutrals. I am quite sure it is so. I am told that the neutral ships that would be available could not carry food supplies sufficient to feed us. We must carry our own stuff in our own ships. In one sense the food carried in neutral ships is, I would not say of no importance, but of relatively small importance. What is important is that our own ships should get through. There might be moments when the import of grain or food in neutral ships might be of real importance to us for a time, but I think that the provisions as to contraband and continuous voyage do a great deal to ensure that supply and do nothing whatever to check it. With regard to the fear as to the right to make

349
additions to the lists of absolute and conditional contraband, I would point out that they are limited, first, as to things capable of use in war, and, secondly, things capable of use for purposes of war or peace. In any case, if a neutral is found with contraband on board and had not received notification, she would be compensated for any destruction of contraband. That is as regards neutrals.
With respect to the criticisms that have been made on Articles 33 and 34, I do not think they bear the interpretation that has been put upon them by the noble Lord. Article 33 reads—
"Conditional contraband is liable to capture if it is shown to be destined for the use of the armed forces or of a Government Department of the enemy State, unless in this latter case the circumstances show that the goods cannot in fact be used for the purposes of the war in progress."
I do not think that any real exception can be taken to that Article, because, for reasons that I shall give, I think this class of goods with this destination has always been held to be contraband. I find in the older books the word used is "contraband." The distinction between conditional and absolute contraband had hardly been developed as it is now adopted by our Prize Courts, but, I am afraid, not altogether by other Prize Courts. Article 34 creates certain presumptions as to destination, and sets out certain proofs which may be required. I should like to say about that, that I do not think those presumptions are as perilous as has been suggested. Clearly it cannot be an extension of the principle that the destination must be to a department of the enemy, or the enemy's forces, and, assuming I am right, contraband with that destination would be capable of condemnation. If these goods are sent to a trader—I will not use the word "contractor," because there is a doubt about the translation—who notoriously supplies the enemy's Government with these goods, that seems to me a reasonable presumption.
With regard to the word "base," I would only say that it is to some extent a word of art. We may not know exactly in the first instance, what a naval commander might consider to be a "base" in stopping a ship, or exactly what a Continental Prize Court of Appeal might hold to be a "base." But the Declaration makes no real difference in this respect. We are in exactly the same position at
350
the present time. The naval commander would act in precisely the same way; a belligerent would act in precisely the same way; and the only difference would be that there would be no International Appeal Court to go to if you were dissatisfied with the action of the naval commander. We think, therefore, that those presumptions do not justify all the observations that have been made about them from time to time, and by my noble friend to-night.
I should like to touch on what is, perhaps, in one sense the most important matter that has been raised in connection with this question of conditional contraband—namely, the application of the doctrine of continuous voyage, or, as I prefer to call it, ultimate destination. Now it has been said, and said very often, that we have obtained the doctrine of continuous voyage as to absolute contraband, but have given away the doctrine of continuous voyage as to conditional contraband. That is not really an accurate statement of our position, because the doctrine of continuous voyage in respect of contraband is really not an English doctrine at all. I do not know whether it would be adopted by our Courts now. I think it very likely would be; but our doctrine of continuous voyage was quite a different one, and it related to the close trade of an enemy during peace being carried on by a neutral during war. If we were at war we stopped such neutral ships as enemy ships and condemned them. This was endeavoured to be met by their entering, between their departure and destination ports, another port front which trade was legitimate. We said we would not recognise that, but that if it was one enterprise it should be treated as a continuous voyage. That was our doctrine of continuous voyage. The United States extended it to contraband during the Civil War, and the most that can be said about that is that we acquiesced. I do not think we protested against the condemnation of one or two of our ships. And this point, as far as we were concerned, came up for consideration in the South African War, when a question arose on a claim that was put forward by us that a voyage was a continuous voyage when the ship was only bound to the neutral port of Lorenzo Marquez. As your. Lordships know, the German Government contested that claim on our part, and for various reasons, partly because there was no contraband on

351
board, we did not press the claim and it was never brought into the Prize Court. That is how it stands. It is not our doctrine as far as any decision of a Prize Court says it is. I think it might be accepted now as part of our law by our Prize Courts, but that is speculative. I think it would be more accurate to say, if you want it to he legally accurate, that we had obtained the acceptance of continuous voyage for absolute contraband; but, however that may be, let us think what is the value of contraband in continuous voyage. I will come to the consequences afterwards. Conditional contraband is not ear-marked as for any warlike purpose. No one could tell that that was its objective. Do you suppose that if anybody was sending conditional contraband through a neutral port for a belligerent it would be addressed to the belligerent? It would go to a neutral port as ordinary goods, and there would be nothing in the world to indicate to outsiders that it was going to any enemy. It would be consigned to a neutral trader, and no commander of a man-of-war would have any grounds for stopping the ship on its way to a neutral port, because there would be nothing to indicate that there was anything contraband on board.
When the question was first under discussion, I confess that was the governing factor in my mind which led me, not to assent, exactly, but rather to advocate assent in order to obtain the acceptance of continuous voyage for absolute contraband. I thought it could not be of the smallest advantage to us. But when I considered the matter afterwards—since the Declaration was framed—I came to the conclusion that really, on the question of food supply, it is very much to our advantage. Take Germany as an example, and say they took Rotterdam as their port. These goods would be landed at Rotterdam. They would have to go into Germany at a time when. if the coast of Germany was blockaded, the whole volume of her ordinary peaceful trade would be coming by train from neutral ports. The railways would be blocked, the expense and delay would be enormous, and the whole of her trade would come in under great disadvantages. Take our situation. I do not think it is a matter of first-rate importance to us to get our food in neutral bottoms, but assume that it is if we were at war with Germany I must say I cannot imagine that we could not get
352
over the difficulties suggested by carrying the whole of the foodstuffs we wanted in neutral bottoms from French ports. If we had lost command of the Channel and there was time enough to starve us out, I do not think there is much more to be said, or that it much matters, but as long as we command the Channel we can keep going what I might call an omnibus service of ships, carrying all the food neutrals can bring.
I should like to deal now with a question that has been hotly debated—the question of the destruction of neutral ships. I think some of the letters which I have read in the newspapers and some of the very bitter observations that have been made on the subject arose from the fact that perhaps our representatives at the Hague and we in London somewhat overstated our ease. It is not correct to state that in no circumstances should a neutral ship be destroyed. Our rule is that if a neutral ship is destroyed by us in circumstances of pressure it should be the subject of compensation in all cases. It is not to be an excuse between us and a neutral that the exigencies of war compelled us to destroy the ship, whatever the cause, whatever the character, or whether or not the cargo be contra band. He is to be compensated in all cases. I think I can show you that very easily. I will read an extract from Lord Stowell's decisions. This is in the case of the "Actaeon "—
"Lastly, it has been said that Captain Capel could not spare men from his own ship to carry the captured vessel to a British port, and that he could not suffer her to go into Boston, where she would have furnished important information to the Americans. These are circumstances which may have afforded very good reasons for destroying the vessel and may have made it a very meritorious act in Captain Capel so far as his own Government is concerned, but they furnish no reason why the American owner should be a sufferer … I think, therefore, that he is entitled to receive the fullest compensation."
Again, in another case—"Felicity," 2 Dodson, 386:
"When it is neutral the act of destruction cannot be justified to the neutral owner by the gravest importance of such an act to the public service of the captor's own State. To the neutral it can only be justified under any such circumstances by a full restitution in value."
And much later Dr. Lushington, in giving judgment in the case of the "Leucade," in 1855 (2 Spinks, 231) says:—
"It is the right of the neutral to be brought in to adjudication…No excuse for him (the captor) as to inconvenience or difficulty can be

353
admitted between captors and claimants … If the ship be destroyed for reasons of policy alone, as to maintain a blockade or otherwise, the claimant is entitled to costs and damages."
I think it is perfectly clear, when you come to think of it, that that must be the rule.
Just imagine a case like this. Two fleets within a comparatively short distance of one another are expecting a fleet action. A neutral ship comes up, and is met by one of the belligerent cruisers. We will call it the A fleet, and the ship is on its way to the B fleet, filled, with things that. the B fleet wants for the purposes of this fleet action. Is there any naval officer in the world who would let that ship go? In such circumstances he obviously cannot detach any one to take the ship in. He wants every man and ship for fighting. All he can do is to do the best with the people on board, and if he cannot manage to hold the ship he must sink her. I believe any officer in the world would do so. That is our rule. You do it for the sake of your own side. See how that works out. Other nations have not got our rules as to compensation. The result is that if in the public service we destroy a neutral vessel, we, being the belligerents, pay full compensation for everything. But if we are neutrals and a belligerent finds it necessary to destroy our vessel in the public service, it does not follow that our owners will get any compensation at all. We really get the worst of it both ways.
On this point the Russo-Japanese war was extremely instructive. Six ships were sunk altogether, I think. In some cases compensation was paid and in others not, but where the compensation was paid it was paid, not because the ship was sunk—that was not the matter before the Prize Court—but because the cargo was not contraband and ought not to have been touched at all. I have taken an extract from the translation of the statement made by the Russian Court in the case of the "Knight Commander"—
"The question of the regularity of sinking a vessel according to the exact interpretation of Article 58 of the laws relating to prizes is not one that is subject to the consideration. of Prize Courts … Whether the extraordinary circumstances observed by the naval commander in the case and which incited him to sink the vessel were sufficient or not is a matter only for the superior officer … and not for the Prize Court … The task of Prize Courts is to recognise a prize, i.e., whether the capture is legal or illegal, or, in other words, to confirm the right of capture or to refuse such confirmation."
354
And they also say, if the State itself thinks fit, may prosecute the captain, but that is not a matter for the Prize Court.
Now, what does the arrangement in the Declaration do? It asserts, first, the impropriety of destroying a neutral ship. It then says—
"As an exception, a neutral vessel which has been captured by a belligerent warship and which would he liable to condemnation may be destroyed if the observance of Article 48 would involve danger to the safety of the warship or to the success of the operations in which she is engaged at the time."
That involves two considerations—first, the safety of the warship, and, secondly, that the neutral vessel would be liable to condemnation. Both those provisions are necessary. It is also necessary that the parties on board should be placed in safety, and the ship's papers and other documents which the parties interested consider relevant for the purpose of deciding on the validity of the capture must be taken on board the warship. When you get to the Prize Court you have to establish both those propositions. If you do not establish them you will have to compensate anyhow. You will have to show that there was danger to the safety of the warship, and that the neutral ship was liable to condemnation, and if you establish both pm-positions you are justified. Therefore the onus is very heavy. It is said that it is not sufficient when you have lost your ship to be merely compensated. My only answer to that is that there is nothing else, and it is the same now. There is nothing but compensation when property is destroyed. Whether the complaint is to the Government or to the Prize Court the remedy is compensation, and I know of no other remedy available.
Just consider the difficulties. Even assuming, which I do not lightly assume, that any difficulty of manœuvring or something of that kind would be held, first by a belligerent Prize Court and then by the international Prize Court to fulfil the conditions required as to danger to the safety of the warship and the success of the operations, before he can free himself from the duty of paying the compensation he has to show that the vessel is liable to condemnation. I do not know how in nine out of ten cases he could possibly do that. He will always have the danger of having to pay compensation on that ground, because the circumstances under which he

355
would sink a ship would preclude any close examination of the cargo, and, according to the Declaration, there must be on board more than half the cargo contraband; and the ship being sunk, it would be very difficult to establish afterwards what they did destroy. The owners would nearly always get compensation. That is a deterrent. If I could think of a better deterrent I would, but I do not know what other deterrent could be devised. It would have been useless to contend that in no circumstances should a ship be destroyed. Under the rule we have established a ship may only be destroyed in case of necessity, the commander acting in accordance with his obvious duty to his country, and, though not perhaps quite in all cases, practically in almost all cases there would be compensation.
I must apologise to your Lordships, but I am afraid I must go back for a minute to a matter connected with food supply, because I do not think I ought to leave that out. It is of considerable importance. The noble Lord said, and it has been said in many other places, that there is no question that food cannot be treated as absolute contraband, but that there is a rule of nations that it should not be. I do not think that the proposition can be put nearly so high as that, and I think the instances that have occurred recently and in other times make it impossible to maintain that view. The French rule that was sent to us with their Memorandum as to the law which they regarded as being the true law of war on that subject was this—
"Food supplies and war material destined to non-combatants are not in principle considered contraband of war, but may be declared so according to the circumstances, of which the Government is judge, and by virtue of an order emanating from it."
That is, no doubt, in accordance with the view which was strongly urged by France in 1885, when she declared all rice contraband, and to which my noble friend referred in his speech. What happened, according to Mr. Hall in his book on International Law, was that all the French consignments or shipments of rice ceased, and as in a very short time the war came to an end no ship was brought into Court. Mr. Hall puts it very clearly that the shipments absolutely ceased, and consequently trade was seriously interfered with. It is significant to note that the German Govern—
356
ment wholly approved of that declaration, and said it was entirely in accordance with the rules of war at that time. Since that time another great Power, Russia, has stated that, in her opinion, in principle, according to the particular war, you may declare food contraband. Russia, it is true, withdrew it from her list at our request, but she made no sacrifice of principle.
Nor are we altogether immune. In 1793 we deliberately declared all food supplies going to France contraband, because we desired to bring the pressure of starvation to bear on the French population The truth is that the whole question of contraband has never been very clearly established. I should like to read the observations of Lord Stowell in the case of the "Ranger." He said—
"It must always be remembered that this Government might have availed itself of the interior distress to the enemy's country as an instrument of war. It did not, however, but humanely permitted cargoes of grain to be carried without molestation for the relief of the necessities of famine under which Spain had for some time laboured."
And further, in another case where there had been pre-emption, the question was the price to be paid. It has nothing to do with the decision in the particular case, but it assumes the right to stop corn that is going to a particular population. In the war between Japan and Russia this question arose, for apparently one ship was captured in July. The Russian Prize Court first condemned the cargo as consigned to a Japanese port. Cargo consigned to private Japanese firms was condemned, because near Kobe there was a military arsenal. Flour on board a ship bound for Korsakovsk, where there were no military operations. Rice and other provisions were bound for a Chinese port in the occupation of Russia, with no evidence of its destination for the forces. The Japanese condemned rice, the food of the population, going to a Chinese port in the occupation of the Russians. There were other cases, but I do not think I need dwell upon them. What it comes to is this, that there really is no generally recognised rule preventing a nation from placing food on its list of absolute contraband. We have a rule, but other nations do not generally recognise it, and we come in on unequal terms. The object which I think has been achieved by the

357
Declaration is that we should come in on equal terms and that all should be in the same position. I think that is all I need say on the subject of the condemnation of food supplies.
Now, with regard to conversion. Here we are on rather delicate ground. It is not for a moment to be supposed that anybody would read the speeches that were made at the Conference, but I do not think that any one who read the speech which I had the honour to deliver would feel that I did not realise the importance of this matter. I may perhaps, in my advocacy have put it a little too high. There is no doubt it is a serious matter, because in the first place it contains the element of surprise. A ship in virtue of her mercantile flag might go from port to port and fill up with coal until she got to some point where she hoped. to operate as a warship. The difficulty—and I am sure noble Lords will appreciate it—in dealing with the matter was that it was quite impossible to say that there was any rule of international law which forbad that. We are trying to make a new rule. I know of nothing which could prevent any nation from turning its ships into anything on the high seas when it is subject to no other jurisdiction, and that right was claimed in the clearest possible terms by the Powers. Qualification was impossible, and we had no alternative but to leave the whole thing out altogether. The only direct bearing it has now on the question is whether the omission of a provision to meet that matter is sufficient reason for us to abandon the advantage which we gain in other directions from the Declaration. My view is that it is not.
I hope time will enable us to come to some understanding on this question, but as it stands it is worth examining a little to see what it comes to. In the first place, a good deal has been said about licensing privateers. I always feel that strong language is a mistake, and I think it is really not applicable at all; but, at any rate, if it is, we are on exceedingly delicate ground in this country as signatories of the Declaration of Paris. In the case of the conversion of a merchant ship, if it operates on the high seas, there is, under the Hague Convention, this obligation on the Power that converts it, that the ship is to be commanded by a commissioned
358
officer and to fly a pendant, and is to operate as a man of war, to be under the control of the State, and be placed on the registered list of warships. So that, once converted, she is subject to the same limitations as a man-of-war, and I do not think it would be accurate to describe her as being the equivalent of a privateer. It is true that the conversion may have results from privateering, but still she is not doing it for gain. She is doing it as a warship after she is converted. When you come to the question of privateering I do not quite follow it, because this does not depend on the place where the ship is commissioned, and we have the intention in our own ports of turning merchant ships into men-of-war if necessary. At one time we were going to do it on a very large scale. So you limit the question of a ship being a privateer or not to prohibition of the place where the pendant is hoisted. It is quite true they have no precedents against us of having converted a merchant ship at sea. I do not know whether there is a case against any one, but we have so converted prizes. Altogether the ground is so uncertain that it is a matter that can only be settled by further negotiation. But whether it is sufficient reason for dispensing with the advantages which, in my humble judgement, we have gained from the rest of the Declaration I will not again say. I have stated my opinion as to this.
I think I have dealt with the subjects which have been the principal objects of criticism. As to the other matters dealt with in the Declaration, I believe the provisions are in substantial accordance with recognised principles which might very properly be accepted by us, except, of course, convoy, which we have conceded for reasons to which I really do not think anybody can object. Others who speak later may, if necessary, give explanations as to other matters, but before I sit down I should like to point out the position we are in. I am not speaking for the Government, and what I am about to say is rather a matter for the Government than for me. I only want to point out that we have clone everything we could to induce foreign Governments to believe that we wanted the International Prize Court and that we approved the Declaration. and on that basis they have

359
made concessions. They have signed and I am a little uneasy as to what they will say if we turn round and repudiate it now, and what they would say in future negotiations with this country. I think they will in future in dealing with us want some very strong security from the Government if, having gone so far with this Declaration, it is rejected now. Do not let me be misunderstood on this matter. I am most anxious not to be misunderstood. I would not for a moment suggest that, if in fact this Declaration does injure our vital interests, our material interests, that would not prevail over any consideration. I will only say that, if we reject the Declaration, the onus is on us to show that there is good and sufficient reason why we should not carry out our agreement; but beyond that I would not go for a moment. The interests of this country must always prevail. I repeat that I believe that we have made no sacrifice of any practical belligerent right whatever, and that as neutrals we gain.
Before I sit down I should like to repeat that, with or without the Declaration, there is one thing which stands out clear and pre-eminent. If, unhappily, we should hereafter he involved in war, it is on our own merchant fleet and not on that of neutral nations that we must rely for our food supplies, for the life-blood that pulses through our arteries, and on which our very existence as a nation must always depend. Our greatest peril, it seems to me, would be in the first fortnight of war, when there might be a commercial panic. Let our nation be assured that all Governments of whatever Party feel it their first duty to provide that our forces shall be sufficient to protect our own commerce in our own vessels, and that peril and fear will be averted. No rules can lessen that primary necessity. But by the Declaration we are substituting in the matters with which it deals fixed rules for what now approaches to chaos, and also diminishing the risk, by perhaps some ill-considered action on a disputed question, of increasing the area of war, and, at a moment of extreme pressure, adding to the number of our enemies.
My Lords, rightly or wrongly, I honestly believe that this will be the effect of the rules in the Declaration and of the creation of the International Court, and I therefore
360
earnestly, and from the bottom of my heart, trust that, incomplete as I admit it is in some respects, the Declaration will take its place on the Statute book of the nations, and that those questions which still remain outside its provisions may ultimately reach a conclusion acceptable to this country. I have detained your Lordships too long, and I thank you for the great indulgence with which you have heard me.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: My Lords, I am sure the House is cordially to be congratulated, as also is the country, on having had the advantage of the very interesting and remarkable speech to which we have just listened from Lord Desart, and I am confident that I shall be voicing the opinion of all your Lordships when I say that we are glad that the moment has arrived when he is freed from his official position and can take part in the deliberations of this House. He is an additional ornament, from his own personal ability and his experience, and we welcome him here cordially from both sides of the House. It is not necessary in this House for Lord Desart to disclaim any motives in the fulfilment of his recent great responsibility other than those of pure patriotism, and whether we agree or disagree with his conclusions, we are quite sure of this, that not even the pride of paternity would have obscured his sense of patriotic duty.
The noble Earl laid down two rules by which, in his opinion, consideration of this question should be guided, and I accept them both. The noble Earl said first, that we must consider this Declaration as a whole. As a whole would it be to the advantage of this country to ratify it? If so, it should be ratified. If, on the other hand, the disadvantages of the Declaration are regarded as greater than the advantages, then Lord Desart admitted that those who held that view would be justified in endeavouring to prevent its ratification. The second rule Lord Desart laid down was that the question must be discussed on the true basis of what the position of other nations is, and not of what we think their position ought to be.
We cannot conceal from ourselves that this is a subject of great difficulty and complexity. No one can have such authority

361
to speak on it as Lord Desart, but many of your Lordships, according to your opportunities, will have tried to master the leading features of the question. And the matter being so complex, I must say I regret that Mr. McKinnon Wood, who has been an able spokesman of the Government in this matter, should recently in an able and interesting speech, have endeavoured to prejudice its consideration by what I must be permitted to call a wholly irrelevant observation. He said that if this Declaration were not ratified—
"one result would be that a new stimulus would be given to the competition in naval armament, which already was an awful burden upon the nations, and we at least would be compelled to suffer in silence for we should be responsible."
That, my Lords, is a statement which really cannot be justified or defended. Whether this Declaration is ratified or not, not one penny will be added to or taken from the Navy Estimates of this or any other country.
It is quite impossible for any speaker to grapple with the whole of this vast subject—not even Lord Desart attempted that. I shall not attempt to follow even the major portion of the question which he so ably dealt with. I will take only the case as it affects us as belligerents, and only that part of the case which deals with food supplies. And here I am able to quote Mr. McKinnon Wood with cordial concurrence. I do not think the position could be more completely summed up. He said—
"The real question was: Would the Declaration of London make it more difficult for this country to obtain its food supply in time of war than it was before? In this respect should we be better off by accepting or declining the Declaration? The whole of the confusion of thought which had arisen upon this subject had its origin in the fact that none of us had experience of the conditions existing under a state of war with a great naval Power, and that none of the critics had stopped to inquire into, and reflect upon, the actual state of affairs now existing before the ratification of the Declaration. If they did they would see at once that this criticism of the Declaration was quite beside the mark—that the Declaration did not make us worse off in this respect, but better off. It was no argument against the Declaration to say that under certain conditions food might be seized by the enemy, when the fact was, at the present moment, food might be seized by the enemy without any conditions at all. He would try to put the central points as simply as possible. If food was being brought to Great Britain in British ships, the Declaration would not alter the present position in the least. If the food was being brought to Great Britain in neutral ships, the Declaration would make us much better off than we were before."
362
That is the position of the Government and of Lord. Desalt, and, with your Lordships' permission, I will proceed to examine it.
What is the position now? Assume that we are, unhappily, at war with some great naval Power and that this Declaration has not been signed. Will the enemy take our view, or what has been stated to be our general view, that food supplies are only conditional contraband where it is presumed that the food is on its way to assist in the operations of the enemy and that its destination is for a naval or military force of the enemy, or for some place of naval or military equipment in the occupation of the enemy? That, I understand from the Blue-book—Lord Desart will correct me—is the position we took up. But let us suppose the enemy to take a more extreme view. Let us suppose that they say, as it is suggested that they might, and as I think they would say, that all foodstuffs coming to the United Kingdom were absolute contraband. In the first instance, as Lord. Desart said. we have to depend upon our own naval strength. But there is a matter which, I think, Lord Desart did not sufficiently deal with, and which, it seems to me, the Government have not laid sufficient stress on in the Foreign Office correspondence—namely, what would be the position of the great neutral Powers if the enemy did declare all foodstuffs coming to the United Kingdom to be absolute contraband My Lords, I think that a neutral Power is in a position to put very great pressure on either side, and the possibility of that pressure has been much too lightly treated by the Foreign Office in its correspondence. The position of the belligerent Power when a neutral Power begins to make representations to it in respect of its treatment of some question of international law—say on this question of absolute contraband in the case of foodstuffs—would be strictly limited by two considerations: in the first place, the reserve strength of the neutral Power to make itself unpleasant if it chose to do so, and, in the second place, the calculation of the belligerent Power on how its own position would be affected if the neutral Power became another belligerent.
We have had some experience of this matter. At the time of the South African

363
war we regarded any representation from a neutral Power as to our action as a matter of the greatest consequence. We framed our policy—I am quite sure the Party opposite would have done the same in similar circumstances—in order to avoid giving any opportunity for a neutral Power to throw its weight against us. Again, in the case that has been quoted—the case of France in 1885—nobody can read the correspondence between France and this country at the time without seeing that the representations of Lord Granville had the greatest possible weight with the French Government and profoundly affected its action. In the recent war between Russia and Japan, had Russia thought at an early stage of that war that we were likely to throw our sword into the scale against her, is it not perfectly certain that she would have treated our representations with the very greatest respect? We were very careful at that moment of peculiar delicacy, after the incident in the North Sea, not to put any pressure on Russia that could have been construed as unduly taking advantage of her then difficulties, and if Russia did not pay all respect to representations made by the Foreign Office, I believe it was because Russia did not think at that moment we were prepared to make those matters questions of hostility. As I have said, the extent to which the representations of a neutral would be respected by a belligerent will always depend on two circumstances—the power of the neutral to make itself felt, and the calculation of the belligerent as to whether the neutral is likely to turn belligerent. Now, apply those considerations to the case that I am supposing. Suppose an enemy Power endeavouring to stop all neutral ships bringing corn to the United Kingdom, no matter for what port destined, or to what merchant. Is it likely that the great neutral naval Powers of the world would consent to their ships being treated in that way? Is it not perfectly certain that they would make representations to which our enemy must undoubtedly listen; and therefore, even supposing the worst construction put on the law in this matter by our supposed enemy, I say that the influence of a neutral Power would be very great against the abuse of this doctrine. That is the position now.
But, my Lords, what will the position be if this Declaration is ratified? Take Articles 33 and 34, which have been so
364
often quoted and round which the controversy turns. Article 33 reads—
"Conditional contraband is liable to capture if it is shown to be destined for the use of the armed forces or of a Government Department of the enemy State, unless in this latter case the circumstances show that the goods cannot in fact be used for the purposes of the war in progress. This latter exception does not apply to a consignment coming under Article 24 (4)."
Then Article 34 runs—
"The destination referred to in Article 33 is presumed to exist if the goods are consigned to enemy authorities, or to a contractor established in the enemy country, who, as a matter of common knowledge, supplies articles of this kind to the enemy. A similar presumption arises if the goods are consigned to a fortified place belonging to the enemy, or other place serving as a base for the armed forces of the enemy …"
I want, first of all, to compare the words "or other place serving as a base for the armed forces of the enemy" with the words which they replace, "Some place of naval or military equipment in the occupation of the enemy." I have a complaint against the Foreign Office, that in their correspondence they have suggested, almost insinuated, that there is no material difference between these two forms of words. I maintain that there is very material difference indeed. Let us take a concrete case. Nobody doubts that Portsmouth is "a place of naval or military equipment," or that it is also "a place serving as a base for the armed forces of the enemy." But take Southampton. Who could possibly contend that Southampton was "a place of naval or military equipment"? But I can imagine many people contending that Southampton was "a place serving as a base for the armed forces of the enemy." Therefore I say that the Foreign Office have been somewhat misleading in the suggestions they have made that there has been no material change in the substitution of one set of words for the other.
I ask your Lordships not to look at this matter from the point of view of a Statesman in an armchair, or even from the point of view of international and Constitutional lawyers; look at it from the point of view of the enemy admiral or cruiser captain. In this connection I should like to fortify myself with another passage from Mr. McKinnon Wood. He says—
"What the critics seem to have overlooked entirely was that if we were at war what would concern us would be not our view, but the view of the enemy."

365
With that I entirely agree. That is the whole question. What is the enemy's fleet there for? What is the main, the only, object of the admiral in charge? What are the only duties of the captains of the enemy cruisers? It is at all costs and hazards to damage this country in a maritime war. Therefore it is an essential part of his duty, so far as he possibly can, to keep supplies of foodstuffs out of this country. Therefore he will read in the largest possible sense the words—
"or other place serving as a base for the armed forces of the enemy."
Put yourselves, my Lords, in the position of the enemy cruiser captain. Would not be contend that the whole of the Thames must be a "base serving for the armed forces of the enemy"? Would he not say the same of the Clyde? Remember that our Territorial Army would be mobilised. The cruiser captain, in these circumstances, will be absolutely bound to contend that every important port in the United Kingdom is a place serving as a base of supply for the armed forces of England at that moment. He may, perhaps, be proved to be wrong. The International Prize Court, When the case is brought to it, might give its decision against him. But how would that help us in a war? The war would be over. The Court of International Appeal will give its decision perhaps a year or two years after the war. It is not likely that the cruiser captain will be in the least influenced by what he may think will be the eventual decision of the International Court of Appeal. If his action assisted his Government in the prosecution of the war, they will indeed not visit it heavily on him if one or two years afterwards they have to pay some indemnity under the decision of the Court. of Appeal.
Now I come to the position of the neutral, and this is a point which has not received enough attention. I have endeavoured to show that as the law is at present a neutral Power can put great pressure on a belligerent Government if it abuses this doctrine of foodstuffs becoming absolute contraband. But if the neutral has signed this Declaration of London he can no longer put pressure on our supposed enemy. He may think that the enemy admirals are stretching the meaning of these Articles far beyond all reason, but he has signed the Declaration and ratified it. Diplomatic representations will be ignored by our enemy, and the
366
neutral Power will have, like ourselves, to be content with the decisions of the International Prize Court, which may be given a year or two after the termination oil the war. Therefore my answer to Lord Desart in respect to this matter is that this Declaration does put us definitely in a worse position than we are in now, even supposing the enemy were to declare all foodstuffs coming to this country to be absolute contraband. It seems to me that. it is not easy to disprove that proposition. Lord Desart has laid great stress on the fact that in such a war we have to depend on the food brought in our own ships and that unless we can protect our own sea-borne commerce by our own Navy we cannot get our salvation out of neutral bottoms. I cordially concur with the noble Earl. If we cannot protect our own ships, if we cannot hold the command of the sea, we are not going to get salvation out of neutral bottoms. There I entirely concur with the noble Earl. But surely he goes much too far when, as the corollary of that doctrine, lie says it is of no importance at all that you should get any supply from neutral bottoms.
THE EARL OF DESART: I do not think I quite went as far as that. I said it would be of relatively small importance.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I am glad the noble Earl should have modified his statement. I certainly thought his first statement a very strong one, a startling one, because although I admit the importance to be only relative, yet I do say that it is to the interests of this country in war to get all the foodstuffs we can by neutral bottoms. Supply by neutral bottoms might be of great importance, and anything we do to make that supply more precarious is unnecessarily handicapping us in the conduct of a possible war in the future. If you admit that the supply of corn by neutral bottoms, in addition to the supply coming in our own ships, if you once admit that supply to be of great importance—though relatively of small importance compared with that which is brought by our own shipping—I think your Lordships must see that this Declaration goes very far to make that source of supply precarious. Let me read Article 40—
"A vessel carrying contraband may be condemned if the contraband, reckoned either by value, weight, volume, or freight, forms more than half the cargo."

367
That is the position. Now, a cargo of wheat, for example, invariably forms more than half of the weight or the freight; it generally forms the whole freight of a cargo of one ship. The neutral ship, therefore, carrying a cargo of wheat to England in time of war will, if this Declaration is ratified, not only be liable to have the cargo seized, but the ship herself will be liable to be seized and condemned, because, in the opinion of the cruiser captain, coining to Glasgow, Bristol, Southampton, or the Thames she is necessarily coming to a place that is "a base of supply for the armed forces of the enemy." The owners of neutral ships would necessarily consider very carefully, therefore, before they ran such risks.
My Lords, I should like to say a word or two about the Miscellaneous Paper No. 2, 1911, which has just been circulated by the Foreign Office. This is a reprint of the correspondence which took place in 1885 in respect of the treatment of rice as contraband. It is correspondence between Lord Granville and the French Government, and there are some rather remarkable features in it. A good deal of the Foreign Office case is based on that correspondence, and the arguments of the French Government, quoting British authorities, is certainly rather powerful. I want to draw the attention of the noble Viscount the President of the Council particularly to this fact. M. Waddington, the French Ambassador, in his despatch of March 10, 1885, quotes as part of his authority what the Attorney-General said in the House of Commons in March, 1854, and what Mr. Gladstone said in July, 1870, quoting Lord Malmesbury in 1859. These quotations were translated into French at the French Foreign Office, and now our Foreign Office have retranslated M. Waddington's despatch into English; and it is interesting to see what correspondence there is between the original extracts from Hansard and the Foreign Office retranslation of the French translation of Hansard.
I will read first the Foreign Office re-translation of the French version of what the Attorney-General said in 1854
"Contraband of War may in general be classed as follows, in two categories:

1. Articles which, by their nature, are of direct use in war, such as arms and ammunition.

2. Articles which may be of indirect use in war, by permitting a continuation of hostilities, such as provisions."

368
I will now quote what the Attorney-General really said—
"A recent most able treatise on International Law, which occupied thirty-four closely-printed pages, substantially classified contraband of war under two heads—

1. Such things as from their very nature were applicable to the purposes of war, such as arms and ammunition; and

2. Such things as were capable of being applied to other purposes besides those of war, but which might be intended for the furtherance of war, such as provisions."

So that "which might be intended for the furtherance of war, such as provisions," becomes now "by permitting a continuation of hostilities, such as provisions." Does not the noble Viscount think that just a little "sloppy"?
This is the Foreign Office version of what Mr. Gladstone said in the House of Commons on July 21, 1870, when quoting an extract from an official letter of Lord Malmesbury, dated May 18, 1859—
"I should state that Her Majesty's Proclamation does not specify—and could not, in fact, specify—what articles are or are not contraband of war; and Oct the passages relating to contraband of war are not intended to prevent the export of coal, nor of any other article, but simply to warn Her Majesty's subjects that if they convey, for the use of either belligerent, articles which are held to be contraband of war, and if their property be seized by either belligerent, Her Majesty's Government will not take upon itself to intervene on their behalf against a seizure of this kind, or against its consequences. I should add that the Prize Court of the country which has made the seizure is competent to decide the case."
The real quotation taken from Hansard is as follows—
"I am to state to you, in reply, that Her Majesty's Proclamation does not specify, and could not properly specify, what articles are or are not contraband of war, and that the passages therein referring to contraband are intended not to prohibit the exportation of coal or any other article, but to warn Her Majesty's subjects that if they do carry, for the use of one belligerent, articles which are contraband of war, and their property be captured by another belligerent, Her Majesty's Government will not undertake to interfere in their favour against such capture or its consequences. I am to add that the Prize Court of the captor is the competent Tribunal to decide whether coal is or is not contraband of war.''
Now. I protest that there is a real difference, considering the care with which language is chosen under such circumstances and in dealing with such cases, there is a real distinction of meaning involved here; and although the noble Viscount objects to a phrase that is not his own I suggest that

369
"sloppiness" has almost become "a mess" in this case.
I have pointed out the difficulty, the danger almost, which appears to me to be involved in some of the Articles of this Declaration in respect of food supplies to the United Kingdom in time of war. But there are other parts of the Empire to be considered, and it does not seem to me that our representatives at this Conference did consider the effect of these provisions on other parts of the Empire. I will take the case of South Africa, which I know best. I draw your Lordships' attention to the phrase about foodstuffs becoming contraband if going to a place serving as a base for the armed forces of the enemy. Take the case of South Africa, which might be seriously involved in a war in which the Empire was engaged. It will certainly be argued that foodstuffs cannot go to any port in South Africa that is not "a base for the armed forces of the enemy." There are only two railway systems in British South Africa, the one that goes North by Natal from Durban and the other that goes North by Cape Colony from East London, Port Elizabeth, and Capetown. It is impossible for the armed forces of this country in any part of South Africa to be supplied from any other British ports; and it is certain—it is not a matter of hypothesis—that the cruiser admiral or captain would claim that foodstuffs going to these ports in South Africa were beyond all question going to places serving as "a base for the armed forces of the enemy."
I do not wonder that a representation has been made from Australia, where a somewhat similar case may arise. And here I should like to make a confession of faith. Sir Edward Grey, in answering a question in the House of Commons as to why lie had not consulted the Dominions upon this question, said he was going to do so, but it had not been practicable at an earlier stage. Now, that answer is one which, I admit, would have been given by any Government previous to this one. My confession of faith is this—that the time has cone by when an answer of that kind ought to be given. In a matter affecting the interests of the Empire as a whole no Government in this country ought to frame an agreement with foreign Powers and commit themselves to that agreement before taking into consultation the Dominions overseas. This Government has acted
370
otherwise. So far as I have ally influence, I will never be a party to such action by a Government of which I am a member. I know that the policy I have advocated is a breach of the traditions of the Foreign Office and that there are difficulties, but in my opinion it is perfectly impossible to carry with us the moral support and confidence of the Dominions if any longer we make these agreements or commit ourselves to them without consulting them. Therefore, while I am glad that His Majesty's Government are about to consult the Dominions at the forthcoming Imperial Conference, my contention is that it was practicable for them to have done so at an earlier stage, and that they ought to have done it at an earlier stage.
My Lords, I shall not attempt to deal with the effect of the Declaration upon the conduct of a naval war. There is only one authority, in my opinion, competent to give an opinion about that, and that is the Board of Admiralty. Lord Desart had as his colleagues at this Conference two distinguished naval officers—friends of my own whom I hold in great respect. But they are not the Board of Admiralty, and it was because they did not necessarily represent the views of the Board of Admiralty that I put the Question to-day to the Lord President of the Council. I asked him whether he could lay upon the Table the views of the Board of Admiralty. I understood from his reply three things. First, that the Government have formally consulted the Board of Admiralty; secondly, that the Government do not consider it compatible with the public interest to lay the opinion of the Board of Admiralty in extenso before Parliament; and, thirdly, that the opinion of the Board of Admiralty might be summarised thus: that in existing circumstances the effect of the Declaration of London and the establishment of an International Prize Court on the conduct of a naval war would be small and inconsiderable. I am glad the Government have consulted the Board of Admiralty, but I think they ought to have done it before.
VISCOUNT MORLEY OF BLACKBURN: How could we have done it before
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: Of course, if the noble Viscount tells me they were consulted before the Declaration was signed, that is a complete answer to my criticism.
VISCOUNT MORLEY OF BLACKBURN: No, I did not say that. To tell the truth, I do not know, being a new-comer. I did not say what time. My answer was not what time they were consulted, so it is immaterial.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: I do not think this adhesion of the Board of Admiralty can be called very enthusiastic, but if they were consulted before the Declaration was signed, of course that particular criticism falls to the ground. If they were consulted at the right moment their opinion necessarily had great weight with the Government. But supposing they were not consulted any more than the overseas Dominions were consulted before the Declaration was signed, then I must say that the Government were not justified in signing the Declaration and that their conduct is inexplicable. It is absolutely essential that the Board of Admiralty should have been consulted, because on them and on them alone will rest the responsibility for the conduct of a naval war, if a naval war unhappily should arise.
I end, as I began, by admitting the extreme difficulty and complexity of the whole question. I have not dogmatised on the matter, but I have endeavoured to show how real and grave are the doubts which beset many of us in this House, and which doubts are reflected in public opinion in the country. It is not confined to our side, but spread over a very large section of the mercantile community. I understand what Lord Desart would have us do. He believes that the Declaration preponderates with advantage to us, and he thinks that any failure to ratify it now would be unfortunate in its consequences
372
in the estimation of other Powers. But in my opinion the Government did not realise, nor did Lord Desart, with all his skill, realise, all the questions and difficulties that lay within the compass of this most complex problem. If they had done so, they would have given a greater opportunity to the interests most affected in this country to make themselves heard, and to themselves to think out the questions in consultation with the Board of Admiralty and the Governments of the Oversea Dominions before committing this country so deeply as, apparently, they have done. They have now agreed to wait to have this matter discussed by the Imperial Conference, and surely it would not be inconsistent with the dignity of the Government, and it would be wholly consonant with the interests of this country, if the Government would utilise the time between now and the Imperial Conference by allowing the question to he freshly considered by some competent body of persons with impartial views who have not already taken part in the controversy. My noble friend behind me suggested a Royal Commission. I have not considered that proposal myself; it is new to me; but it is an admirable illustration of my contention and my plea that the Government should not put their foot down. We may be wrong, my fears may be groundless, but the step, once taken, cannot be retraced. I would plead for further consideration, and that the Government should not reject all suggestions for probing this question to the bottom.
On Question, further debate adjourned till To-morrow.
House adjourned at twenty minutes before Eight o'clock, till Tomorrow, half-past Ten o'clock.